Gregory K. Scott

The case involved claims of unlawful employment discrimination by the Colorado Department of Natural Resources against employee Ahmad Bodaghi, an Iranian-born engineer, in its decisions not to promote him and to reallocate a position to another candidate. The State Personnel Board, affirming an administrative law judge's findings, determined that the Department had engaged in intentional discrimination after Bodaghi established a prima facie case and the ALJ rejected the employer's proffered nondiscriminatory reasons as incredible. The court of appeals reversed, but the Colorado Supreme Court reversed that decision and reinstated the Board's order. The Court held that, under precedent from Colorado Civil Rights Commission v. Big O Tires, an ALJ may infer intentional discrimination from a prima facie case and a finding that the employer's stated reasons are pretextual, without needing additional evidence, and that the court of appeals improperly substituted its own factual findings for those of the ALJ.

labor & employmentcivil rights

In Garcia v. People, the defendant was convicted of child abuse resulting in death after a trial in which the defense argued that the victim's injuries were accidental. After jury deliberations began, the foreperson reported that one juror was unwilling to follow the court's instructions, and the trial judge dismissed that juror without conducting an inquiry into the allegations or making findings of bias or prejudice. The Colorado Supreme Court held that a trial court may not dismiss a deliberating juror based on misconduct allegations absent supporting findings that the juror will not follow instructions, and that any investigation must avoid intruding into the deliberative process. The court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals, concluding that the dismissal was improper due to the lack of such inquiry or findings. The case centered on the importance of protecting jury deliberations in criminal trials.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved an appeal by the Park County Water Preservation Coalition challenging a water court's sexennial finding of reasonable diligence by the City of Aurora in developing conditional water rights for the Columbine Reservoir Storage Project, which originated from a 1983 application later amended to include Aurora as co-applicant with an appropriation date of 1988. The coalition argued that the water court lacked jurisdiction due to the applicant's lack of intent to divert water at filing and inadequate resume notice under Colorado statutes. The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed the water court's ruling, holding that subject-matter jurisdiction vested through timely filing and publication of the resume notice, that the notice was legally sufficient to apprise potential objectors, and that the coalition was barred by the statute of limitations from challenging the original decree. The core reasoning centered on compliance with statutory requirements for applications and notices in water rights proceedings, as well as prior stipulations and activities demonstrating diligence.

environmentpropertyprocedure

The case involved whether statements made by juvenile J.D. during telephone conversations with police about her involvement in an armed robbery were admissible, given that they were made without Miranda warnings or a parent's presence while she was detained in a Nevada juvenile facility. The trial court suppressed the statements, ruling that the conversations constituted a custodial interrogation requiring such protections. On appeal, the Colorado Supreme Court reversed, holding that under the totality of the circumstances and applying the Denison factors, the phone calls initiated by J.D. did not amount to a custodial interrogation, so Miranda warnings and parental presence were not required by statute. The court reasoned that detention in a facility alone does not make any police contact custodial, and the voluntary nature of the call, with trusted adults present, supported admissibility.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, the defendant challenged the district court's jurisdiction after the State refiled identical criminal charges in county court following its earlier dismissal without prejudice of the same charges, before any preliminary hearing had occurred. The Colorado Supreme Court considered whether Crim. P. 5 and Crim. P. 7 permit the State to restart proceedings by filing a second information in county court after such a dismissal. The Court held that the rules do not allow this refiling procedure, as the State must instead pursue other authorized methods such as a direct information in district court under specified conditions. It therefore reversed the district court's denial of the defendant's motion and directed dismissal of the refiled charges without prejudice.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Brent Ullery's convictions for crimes including attempted first-degree murder, robbery of the elderly, aggravated robbery, and assault after he raised an impaired mental condition defense at trial. The prosecution subpoenaed the entire file of the defense-retained psychiatrist, which contained attorney work product, and the trial court ruled that the statutory waiver of confidentiality under section 16-8-103.6 applied to all materials. The Colorado Supreme Court held that the waiver does not extend to attorney work product and that an in camera review is required to excise protected portions, but concluded that Ullery failed to preserve the issue for appeal by not making a sufficient record despite being offered the opportunity. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part and reversed in part the court of appeals' judgment ordering a new trial.

criminal lawprocedure