This case involved a worker terminated under his employer's zero-tolerance drug policy after a positive test for marijuana, who then sought unemployment compensation benefits. The Colorado Court of Appeals upheld the denial of benefits under the state statute disqualifying claimants who test positive for controlled substances during working hours. The court reasoned that although article XVIII, section 14 of the Colorado Constitution exempts registered medical marijuana users from state criminal prosecution, it does not override employment drug policies or create an exception to the unemployment disqualification statute. The decision emphasized that the constitutional provision addresses only criminal liability and does not protect against private employer rules or related benefit denials.
In People v. Martinez, defendant Steve Martinez, Jr. was convicted of vehicular homicide while driving under the influence after a crash that killed his passenger, C.B., with evidence including blood alcohol test results from a private laboratory showing levels above the legal limit at the time of the incident. The trial court admitted the lab reports under Colorado statute section 16-3-309(5) without requiring testimony from the testing technician, and imposed an eight-year prison sentence. On appeal, the court held that the statute applies to reports from private criminalistics laboratories, not just state-run ones, and that the defendant waived his confrontation rights by failing to request the technician's testimony at least ten days before trial. The court also found the sentence was within the presumptive range and based on appropriate considerations, with no abuse of discretion by the trial court. The conviction and sentence were affirmed.
The case involved rural Colorado restaurant and hotel owners challenging the constitutionality of Amendment 42, a voter-approved measure that raised the state minimum wage to $6.85 per hour with annual inflation adjustments based on the Consumer Price Index used for Colorado. Plaintiffs argued the provision was unconstitutionally vague because no Colorado-specific CPI existed, that the Department of Labor exceeded its authority by using the Denver-Boulder-Greeley CPI, and that this application violated equal protection by disadvantaging rural businesses. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the complaint, concluding that the amendment's language reasonably allowed the agency to select an appropriate CPI index, that the choice was not arbitrary, and that the provision created a workable standard. The decision upheld the agency's interpretation under principles of administrative deference and rational basis review.
The case involved Ruth Koehler, an elderly disabled woman receiving Medicaid Home- and Community-Based Services (HCBS) benefits while her husband resided in a nursing home and received Medicaid assistance. The Colorado Department of Health Care Policy and Financing terminated Koehler's HCBS benefits based on a state regulation that denied her a community spouse monthly income allowance (CSMIA) under the Medicaid Catastrophic Care Act because she herself was receiving HCBS. The district court upheld the termination, but the appellate court reversed, holding that the state regulatory definition was inconsistent with the federal statutory purpose of preventing pauperization of community spouses. The court reasoned that federal law permits states to treat HCBS recipients as institutionalized spouses for spousal impoverishment provisions and that the regulation improperly extended beyond congressional intent by precluding the allowance in this situation.
The case involved Emilio Paredes suing Air-Serv Corporation and United Airlines for negligence after he was injured twice while receiving wheelchair assistance during a flight layover at Denver International Airport, first when the wheelchair caught on the jetway and later when it collapsed in the terminal. The district court dismissed the complaint on the ground that the state-law negligence claim was preempted by the Federal Aviation Authority Authorization Act provision barring enforcement of state laws related to air carrier services. The court of appeals reversed and remanded, concluding that the FAAAA does not preempt common-law personal-injury claims because Congress did not clearly intend to displace traditional state tort remedies, the statute's savings clause preserves existing common-law remedies, and no federal remedy exists for such injuries.
The case involved defendant Aaron Samuel Trujillo, who pleaded guilty to incest and was sentenced to Sex Offender Intensive Supervision Probation (SOISP) for an indeterminate term, to run consecutive to the incarceration portion of a prior sentence but concurrent with its parole period. After violations occurred in 2008 and 2009 while the defendant was on parole from the other case, the trial court revoked the SOISP and imposed an indeterminate prison term of seven years to life. The defendant appealed, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction to revoke because his SOISP had not yet commenced. The court affirmed, holding that the plea agreement clearly established the SOISP began upon parole release, rendering the violations subject to revocation proceedings, and that trial courts have authority to structure probation sentences consecutively to incarceration components of separate sentences.