Gregory J. Hobbs jr

The case involved a dispute in an underlying child welfare proceeding over whether the Office of the Child Protection Ombudsman, a non-party, could obtain an unredacted workplace investigative report commissioned by the Washington County Board of County Commissioners concerning a former DHS director. The Supreme Court of Colorado held that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to order release of the report because its jurisdiction had terminated before the orders were issued and it did not retain ongoing authority. The court further reasoned that the statute defining the Ombudsman's duties does not authorize it to file motions seeking information in cases where it is not a party and that the Ombudsman must instead proceed under the Colorado Open Records Act, adding that even if jurisdiction existed the Ombudsman had no right to the full unredacted report since most of its contents addressed matters outside the Ombudsman's jurisdiction.

family lawprocedure

The case involved whether incriminating statements made by defendant Michael Lynn during police interrogation in a Colorado jail should be suppressed under Miranda rules. While being read his rights regarding assault, kidnapping, and menacing charges, Lynn asked in an assertive tone, 'When can I talk to a lawyer?' The trial court suppressed the statements made after that question, and the Colorado Supreme Court affirmed on interlocutory appeal. The court held that the question was an unambiguous request for counsel, so police were required to cease all interrogation until Lynn consulted an attorney. The core reasoning was that the statement was clear enough that a reasonable officer would understand it as invoking the right to counsel, rendering any later statements inadmissible.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved the Associated Governments of Northwest Colorado petitioning the Routt County District Court for judicial review of Colorado Public Utilities Commission orders adopting an emission reduction plan, even though AGNC's principal place of business was in Garfield County. The PUC moved to dismiss, arguing lack of subject matter jurisdiction under section 40-6-115 because the action was not commenced in one of the two authorized district courts. The Colorado Supreme Court held that the statute's requirement that cases be commenced and tried in specific courts addresses venue rather than jurisdiction, so the Routt County court could transfer the case to Denver District Court. The court reasoned that district courts possess general subject matter jurisdiction over PUC review petitions, and the statutory language limits only the place of trial without stripping jurisdiction when the action is filed elsewhere.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Town of Minturn v. Sensible Housing Co., the Town of Minturn enacted nine annexation ordinances in 2008 for parcels including land subject to an ongoing quiet title dispute between Ginn and Sensible Housing that began in 1998. Sensible challenged the annexations under C.R.S. § 31-12-116, arguing the town exceeded its authority by proceeding without an election due to the title conflict, and the court of appeals applied the priority-of-jurisdiction rule to void the ordinances and require the town to stay its legislative actions. The Colorado Supreme Court reversed, holding that the priority rule applies only between competing judicial proceedings and not to a municipality's legislative annexation decisions. The court remanded with directions to stay judicial review of the annexations pending final resolution of the quiet title action.

propertyprocedure

The case involved defendant Tyler Wilburn, charged with violating bail bond conditions by missing a court date, who sought to introduce expert testimony about his learning disorder to support a mistake of fact defense regarding the "knowingly" element of the charge. The trial court ruled that such evidence required Wilburn to plead not guilty by reason of insanity and undergo a mandatory multi-day commitment for examination at a state facility. The Colorado Supreme Court reversed, holding that expert testimony on mental condition under section 16-8-107(8)(b) does not necessitate an insanity plea, and that the trial court has discretion to order an outpatient examination of appropriate duration pursuant to section 16-8-106(1), allowing Wilburn to proceed with his defense after complying with notice and examination requirements.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned whether the Colorado Department of Revenue needed statewide voter approval under Article X, Section 20 of the Colorado Constitution (Amendment 1) to apply an inflation adjustment formula in a pre-existing coal severance tax statute, resulting in an increase from $0.54 to $0.76 per ton. The Colorado Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and held that no voter approval was required. The court reasoned that the statute established a tax rate with two components—a base rate of thirty-six cents per ton plus a non-discretionary quarterly adjustment based on the producer price index—which was enacted before Amendment 1, so implementing it did not constitute a new tax rate increase. The adjustment was part of the original tax rate formula, and increased revenue collection is governed by other provisions of Amendment 1.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

In this private condemnation action, Ronald Lewis sought to condemn an easement across land owned by the Glenelk Association to provide access to his allegedly landlocked parcel for future residential development. The trial court dismissed the petition, finding that Lewis had not provided a sufficiently concrete development plan to allow the court to determine the necessity for or appropriate scope of the easement. The court of appeals reversed, holding that the condemnation could proceed if the proposed use complied with zoning. The Colorado Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and reinstated the dismissal, holding that a condemnor seeking a private way of necessity for future development must present a defined purpose that enables the trial court to ascertain and limit the burden imposed on the servient property.

propertyprocedure

In this interlocutory appeal, the prosecution challenged the trial court's suppression of statements made by defendant Wayne Klinck in connection with an alleged assault on his girlfriend. Klinck was questioned on the porch of the victim's home before his arrest, invoked his Miranda right to counsel after arrest, and later made additional statements during a jailhouse interview initiated by detectives unaware of the invocation. The Colorado Supreme Court held that Klinck was not in custody for Miranda purposes during the porch interview, so those statements should not have been suppressed, and that the post-arrest jailhouse statements, although obtained in violation of Miranda, were voluntary and thus admissible for impeachment purposes. The court reasoned that the porch questioning involved no formal arrest or restraints, occurred in a conversational tone, and lasted only minutes, while the jail interview featured no significant coercive tactics, allowed Klinck to refuse certain requests, and included his own indication that he wished to speak freely.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Nicanor Sanchez-Martinez, who pleaded guilty pro se to third-degree assault as domestic violence and later filed a Crim. P. 35(c) motion to vacate the plea based on new evidence. At the hearing, testimony revealed that Sanchez-Martinez could not read or write in English or Spanish, had not been advised of his constitutional rights, and believed he would be jailed if he did not plead guilty. The county court vacated the plea as unknowing, involuntary, and unintelligent, but the district court reversed on due process grounds, finding inadequate notice to the prosecution. The Colorado Supreme Court reversed the district court, holding that the county court had provided adequate notice through the hearing evidence, acted within its discretion to address the plea's constitutionality, and that the record supported vacating the plea.

criminal lawprocedure

In this interlocutory appeal, the prosecution challenged a trial court's order suppressing evidence of illegal drugs and drug paraphernalia discovered during a traffic stop and subsequent police search. The Colorado Supreme Court reversed the suppression order, holding that the protective search of the vehicle's passenger compartment was justified because officers had an objectively reasonable suspicion that the passenger might be armed and dangerous based on her furtive movements. The court further held that the officer's discovery of a pipe inside a glove fell within the plain feel doctrine, permitting seizure of the contraband without violating the Fourth Amendment or the state constitution. The case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved parents who consented to a guardianship of their minor child with non-parent relatives under Colorado statute due to the mother's health issues, then petitioned to terminate it after resolving those issues. The Colorado Supreme Court held that fit parents retain the constitutional presumption that their decision to seek termination and regain custody is in the child's best interests, unless the guardianship order expressly limits that right, and that guardians bear the burden to show termination is not in the child's best interests by a preponderance of the evidence. The court reasoned from parental rights precedents like Troxel v. Granville and Colorado custody cases that consent delegates day-to-day decision-making to guardians but does not waive the presumption or shift the burden away from non-parents opposing termination.

family lawcivil rights

The case involved parents who had consented to a guardianship of their child with relatives due to the mother's health issues and later sought to terminate it after resolving those issues. The trial court and court of appeals held that the parents had forfeited the constitutional presumption that their custodial decisions serve the child's best interests by agreeing to the guardianship. The Colorado Supreme Court reversed, ruling that in a guardianship established by parental consent, fit parents retain the presumption that their decision to terminate it is in the child's best interests unless the order expressly provides otherwise. The court reasoned that consent delegates only day-to-day care and control as specified in the order, while the guardians bear the burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that termination would not serve the child's best interests.

family lawcivil rights

The case involved a criminal prosecution of Christina Maria Castaneda for possession of a controlled substance, driving under the influence, and leaving the scene of an accident. Police arrested her after locating her with a vehicle matching the description of one involved in a hit-and-run, noting her alcohol-scented breath, the forward-adjusted driver's seat inconsistent with her claim that a taller woman had been driving, and her presence as the only person linked to the car. The trial court suppressed the evidence obtained from the subsequent vehicle search, ruling there was no probable cause for the arrest. On interlocutory appeal, the Colorado Supreme Court reversed the suppression order, holding that the totality of the circumstances known to the officer supported probable cause to arrest Castaneda as the driver. The court reasoned that these facts allowed a reasonable inference that she had operated the vehicle despite her statements to the contrary.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved HealthSouth Corporation's petitions for abatement and refund of personal property taxes it paid to Boulder County and other Colorado counties for the 2002 tax year on assets that did not exist. HealthSouth had intentionally reported fictitious "AP summary" items on its personal property schedules as part of a nationwide accounting fraud scheme to balance overstated earnings. After the county and the Board of Assessment Appeals denied the petitions, the court of appeals reversed, finding a viable claim based on overvaluation. The Colorado Supreme Court reversed that decision, holding that section 39-10-114 does not authorize a refund when a taxpayer intentionally lists and pays taxes on non-existent property through self-reporting, as the statute's provisions for clerical, factual, or legal errors by the assessor or certain taxpayer mistakes do not extend to deliberate misreporting.

taxespropertybusiness & regulatory

This case concerned an allocation of parental responsibilities (APR) proceeding in which former foster parents sought court-ordered visitation time with two children over the objection of the children's biological father, who had sole custody after a dependency and neglect case. The district court granted the foster parents daytime and overnight stays without applying constitutional standards protecting parental rights or making findings of special factors. The Colorado Supreme Court held that the presumption a fit parent acts in the child's best interests applies at every stage of an APR case, requiring non-parents to rebut it by clear and convincing evidence that their requested parenting time serves the child's interests and obligating the court to identify the special factors supporting any interference with parental decision-making. Because the lower court failed to follow this framework or make the required findings, the Supreme Court set aside the visitation order and remanded for further proceedings.

family lawcivil rights

In Bly v. Story, a landowner with a landlocked parcel sought to privately condemn a non-exclusive access easement over an existing driveway on neighboring property owned by the Blys, after failed negotiations to purchase one. The trial court denied the Blys' motion to dismiss the condemnation petition, granted the easement, and excluded valuation evidence based on the cost-of-construction appraisal method, leading to a jury award of $3,300 for the easement and $9,200 in damages. The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the petition satisfied the statutory requirements under section 38-1-102(1) by describing the property location and purpose as a private way of necessity without needing a metes-and-bounds description or exhaustive list of specific uses. The court also ruled that excluding the cost-method evidence was within the trial court's discretion, even though such evidence could be admissible in principle.

propertyprocedure

This case involved a challenge by registered elector Christopher Howes to the Colorado Title Board's decision to set a title for 2009-2010 Initiative #91, which proposed amending the state constitution to impose a tax on non-alcoholic beverage containers to fund water protection efforts. The initiative would direct most of the revenue to basin roundtables and the interbasin compact committee while also barring the General Assembly from altering statutes governing those entities or creating superior agencies until December 2014. Howes argued that the measure violated the single-subject requirement in article V, section 1(5.5) of the Colorado Constitution. The Supreme Court of Colorado agreed, holding that the initiative addressed at least two distinct subjects: establishing and administering a beverage container tax, and restricting legislative authority over water-related entities by embedding them in the constitution with new powers. The court reversed the Title Board and directed it to strike the title and return the initiative to the proponents.

electionsenvironmenttaxes

The case involved an injured employee's claim for underinsured motorist benefits under her employer's excess liability insurance policy following a workplace-related car accident. The Colorado Supreme Court reviewed a trial court order compelling arbitration of the claim against the excess insurer and directing the arbitration panel to decide a defense of litigation-based waiver. The court held that the excess insurer's follow-form endorsement incorporated the primary insurer's arbitration clause as a matter of contract interpretation because it lacked any express definition or disclaimer of specific terms. However, the court ruled that the trial court, not the arbitrators, must determine whether the employee waived arbitration rights by prior litigation, since that issue falls outside the arbitration agreement's scope. The case was remanded for further proceedings on the waiver defense.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involved a challenge by petitioners to the Colorado Title Board's setting of the title and submission clause for Initiative #45, a proposed constitutional amendment establishing a right to health care choice by prohibiting state requirements for participation in health insurance plans. The Colorado Supreme Court upheld the Title Board's actions, ruling that the initiative contained only one subject: preserving individuals' rights to choose their own health care arrangements. The court reasoned that the title was fair, accurate, and did not include an impermissible catch phrase, as it accurately described the initiative's provisions without misleading voters.

healthcareelections

In Clark v. People, the defendant challenged his sexual assault conviction, arguing that DNA evidence of his semen on the victim's clothing was insufficient to prove his identity as the perpetrator because it did not exclude the possibility of deposit at another time. The Colorado Supreme Court granted certiorari to assess the sufficiency of the evidence under the proper legal standard. The court upheld the conviction, applying the substantial evidence test from People v. Bennett that views all direct and circumstantial evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, and found it sufficient for a reasonable jury to conclude guilt beyond a reasonable doubt based on the DNA match, the recent purchase of the clothing, and corroborating circumstantial details such as the attacker's height, build, jacket type, prior access to the home, and knowledge of the victim's son's disability. The court disapproved the court of appeals' modified sufficiency test drawn from fingerprint cases but affirmed the judgment on different grounds.

criminal lawprocedure