Michael L. Bender

This case concerned whether the Colorado Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to review a district court's dismissal of a misdemeanor charge in a case that was improperly transferred from county court in violation of a chief judge's order. The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeals does have jurisdiction because the dismissal constitutes a final judgment from the district court. The reasoning was that the only avenue for appeal of such an order is to the Court of Appeals, as county court appeals go to district court but this originated from district court action, and denying review would leave the procedural violation unreviewable. The matter was remanded for review on the merits.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned whether a trial attorney violated Colorado Rule of Professional Conduct 1.8(e) by advancing fees to appellate counsel hired to represent his client, Elizabeth Flood, in appeals of her Colorado Fair Debt Collection Practices Act claim against debt collector Mercantile Adjustment Bureau. The Supreme Court of Colorado held that the payments did not violate the rule, as they constituted permissible advancement of litigation expenses that the attorney expected to recoup from any court-awarded fees. The court affirmed the award of appellate attorneys' fees but reversed the portion of the district court's ruling that applied Colorado Appellate Rules to deny fees for the current appeal from county court, and remanded for proceedings to determine Flood's entitlement to those fees.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case concerned the scope of prosecutorial work product protection under Crim. P. 16(I)(e)(1) in a criminal prosecution of defendant Brittney Angel for charges including vehicle eluding and evidence tampering arising from a 2011 incident. The trial court ordered the prosecution to disclose materials such as an internal PowerPoint and witness interview notes prepared during a related investigation into a deputy’s shooting of another person, ruling that the protection applies only to work product created for the case immediately before the court. The Colorado Supreme Court reversed that order, holding that the protection extends to opinion work product prepared in anticipation of any criminal prosecution. The court remanded for an ex parte in camera review to determine whether the specific materials qualify as protected work product.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned whether political advertisements distributed by Senate Majority Fund and Colorado Leadership Fund qualified as 'expenditures' under article XXVIII of the Colorado Constitution, which requires registration and contribution limits for political committees if the ads 'expressly advocate' for or against a candidate. The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the complaints, ruling that the ads did not meet the definition because none used explicit words like 'vote for' or 'defeat' or substantially similar synonyms. The court reasoned that the constitutional provision, adopted via citizen initiative in 2002, intentionally adopted the narrow 'magic words' standard from Buckley v. Valeo to define express advocacy, and a broader 'functional equivalent' test would raise vagueness and overbreadth concerns under the First Amendment.

electionsfree speech

This case involves an interstate child custody dispute between divorced parents, with the children living in Colorado with their mother and the father residing in New York. After a New York family court referee ruled that New York had lost exclusive continuing jurisdiction because the children had not lived there for years and all relevant information was elsewhere, the New York Supreme Court nonetheless exercised jurisdiction and modified the original custody order to grant temporary sole custody to the father. The father sought to have Colorado enforce that modification order under the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA). The Colorado Supreme Court held that Colorado is not required to enforce the New York Supreme Court's order because it did not exercise jurisdiction consistent with the PKPA, given the prior relinquishment of jurisdiction by the family court referee under New York law. The core reasoning applied the PKPA's rule that a sister state's custody determination receives full faith and credit only if rendered by a court with proper jurisdiction under that state's own laws.

family lawfederal powerprocedure

This case involved an interstate child custody dispute between divorced parents, with the child living in Colorado with her mother and the father residing in Nebraska. After the father obtained a custody award from a Nebraska court, the mother filed in Colorado, which refused to enforce the Nebraska order on jurisdictional grounds. The Colorado Court of Appeals reversed, requiring enforcement under full faith and credit principles, but the Colorado Supreme Court reversed that decision. The court held that Colorado was not obligated to recognize the Nebraska custody determination because Nebraska had not exercised jurisdiction in compliance with the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this ruling.

family law