William D. Neighbors

In Bales v. People, the defendant was convicted of felony menacing and sought to prevent the prosecution from using a prior conviction for first-degree sexual assault to impeach him if he testified, arguing that the prior conviction was unconstitutionally obtained due to ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court and court of appeals denied the motion in limine and held that the prior conviction was final and could not be collaterally attacked in this proceeding. The Colorado Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court must hold an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the prior conviction satisfied constitutional standards before allowing its use for impeachment. The court reasoned that refusing such a hearing impermissibly burdened the defendant's constitutional right to testify in his own defense, relying on its recent decision in Apodaca v. People. The case was remanded for further proceedings, including the hearing and a potential new trial if the prior conviction is found invalid.

criminal lawprocedure

The case arose from an incident in which plaintiff Mahinder Uberoi, seeking university records under the Colorado Open Records Act, had a confrontation with a university employee that led to his arrest by campus police; he then sued the University of Colorado and several employees for slander, assault, battery, false arrest, negligence, conspiracy, and violations of his constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The trial court dismissed all claims, citing the plaintiff's failure to provide the notice required by the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act for tort claims, the inapplicability of § 1983 to states or the university, and the eleventh amendment. The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of the common-law tort claims on immunity grounds but reversed the dismissal of certain § 1983 claims. It held that the eleventh amendment did not apply, that the university qualifies as a "person" under § 1983, and that the complaint adequately alleged deprivations of constitutional rights. The court therefore remanded those claims for further proceedings.

civil rightstorts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved charges against three defendants for possessing and manufacturing methamphetamine after police entered their home without a warrant during a landlord-tenant dispute, observed drug-related items, and later obtained a search warrant based on those observations. The district court suppressed the physical evidence seized under the warrant, and the People appealed under C.A.R. 4.1, arguing that the defendants' suppression motions were facially insufficient and that the court had improperly shifted the burden of proof. The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed the suppression order, holding that the prosecution failed to establish the legality of the officers' initial warrantless entry into the home and that the motions adequately raised the issue of an unlawful search and seizure under state and federal constitutions.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a dispute over whether Colorado courts retained jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act to modify visitation rights after a 1974 divorce decree, where the mother and child had relocated to Michigan in 1975 and the father later sought enlarged visitation in Colorado. The trial court and court of appeals held that Colorado had subject matter jurisdiction because it was the child's home state at the time the original dissolution proceeding began. The Colorado Supreme Court reversed, ruling that jurisdiction for a modification proceeding must be assessed based on the circumstances at the time the modification motion was filed, not the original action, and that Colorado lacked jurisdiction under the UCCJA's home state or significant connection provisions given the child's long-term residence in Michigan.

family law

In Davis v. M.L.G. Corp., a car rental customer paid an extra daily fee to select the physical damage waiver option in a standard rental agreement but later crashed the vehicle while intoxicated; the rental company sued to recover the car's value and related damages, arguing that the waiver was voided by the contract's prohibition on driving under the influence. The trial court ruled for the customer, the court of appeals held the waiver was not insurance and was properly voided, and the Supreme Court reversed, concluding that the waiver's scope was limited in an unconscionable manner. The core reasoning rested on contract principles: the agreement was a standardized form with small print on the reverse side that the customer had no meaningful opportunity to review before signing, the company charged an additional fee for the waiver while burying key exclusions, and enforcing the limitation would frustrate the customer's reasonable expectations in the transaction.

business & regulatory

The case involved the prosecution's appeal from a district court's dismissal of criminal charges against defendant Joseph J. Beyette for violating Colorado's statutory speedy trial requirements under section 18-1-405. After a mistrial, the People pursued an original proceeding that led to reinstatement of two counts, with the trial reset for March 1983; the defendant moved to dismiss on speedy trial grounds, and the court granted the motion. The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the six-month speedy trial period was tolled during the interlocutory appeal but did not begin anew upon remand. The court reasoned that the statute excludes only the delay caused by such appeals and does not provide for resetting the clock, so the remaining time had expired by the new trial date. As a result, all charges were properly dismissed.

criminal lawprocedure