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

In this case, an inmate in Colorado Department of Corrections custody was charged with unlawful use of marijuana, a petty offense, and possession of contraband in the first degree, a felony, based on a positive test for THC while incarcerated. The trial court found probable cause for the use charge but dismissed the possession charge, ruling that evidence of use alone could not support an inference of possession without additional facts. The Colorado Supreme Court granted review under C.A.R. 21 and reversed, holding that the parties' stipulations to continuous custody and the positive drug test established probable cause for possession of contraband in a detention facility. The court clarified its prior precedent, noting that while proof of use does not automatically prove possession, the same evidence can support both charges here without constitutional infirmity, and directed reinstatement of the dismissed count.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a prosecution challenge, via an original proceeding, to a trial court's pretrial ruling in a juvenile first-degree sexual assault case permitting the defense to introduce evidence of the complainant's prior sexual conduct and reputation for promiscuity to show the defendant's state of mind on the issue of consent. The Colorado Supreme Court held that the trial court erred and that the evidence was inadmissible under the Colorado rape shield statute, section 18-3-407. The court reasoned that the statute bars such evidence absent a showing of relevance to a material issue, that the complainant's statements did not open the door to her sexual history, and that the defendant's claimed awareness of her reputation was insufficient to justify admission to rebut the element of force. The court exercised its superintending authority and made the rule absolute, barring the evidence.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a dissolution of marriage between Patricia and Robert Nussbeck, where the husband failed to pay court-ordered maintenance and child support as per temporary orders that were later incorporated into a 1990 money judgment and 1994 permanent orders. After the wife sought punitive contempt sanctions for willful nonpayment, the trial court found the husband in contempt and imposed jail time, but the court of appeals reversed on the ground that a money judgment and contempt proceedings are alternative remedies. The Colorado Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals, holding that entry of a judgment for past-due support does not deprive a trial court of authority to enforce its underlying orders through contempt proceedings. The court reasoned that contempt turns on the existence of a lawful order, the party's knowledge of it, ability to pay, and willful disobedience, regardless of whether the arrears have been reduced to judgment.

family lawprocedure

This case concerned a facial First Amendment challenge to Colorado Revised Statutes section 18-9-122(3), which prohibits knowingly approaching within eight feet of another person without consent for the purpose of counseling in the sidewalk or public way within 100 feet of a health care facility entrance. Petitioners, who sought to engage in sidewalk counseling near such facilities, argued the floating buffer zone was an unconstitutional prior restraint, content-based restriction, and overbroad. The Colorado Supreme Court upheld the statute, holding that it constituted a valid time, place, and manner regulation of speech. The court reasoned that the provision was content-neutral, narrowly tailored to serve the significant government interest in protecting privacy and access to health care facilities, and left open ample alternative channels for communication, applying the standard from Ward v. Rock Against Racism rather than the more restrictive Schenck analysis for injunctions.

abortionfree speechhealthcare

In Douglas v. People, the defendant was charged with felony menacing after pointing a loaded gun at two individuals during a dispute over a loan and claimed self-defense and defense of premises. The trial court admitted evidence of three prior incidents in which Douglas had brandished a gun without being threatened, to rebut those defenses and prove intent under Colorado Rule of Evidence 404(b). The Colorado Supreme Court held that the trial court did not err, ruling that the prior acts evidence was logically relevant for a purpose independent of showing bad character and that its probative value was not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice. The court affirmed the court of appeals judgment upholding the conviction.

criminal lawgunsprocedure

This case involved a dispute over whether the Colorado Court of Appeals could review a trial court's order reducing attorney fees awarded to a court-appointed lawyer in a dependency and neglect case, even though the trial court had certified the fee order as final under C.R.C.P. 54(b) while other claims remained pending. The court of appeals had dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The Colorado Supreme Court reversed, holding that the court of appeals has jurisdiction over such certified final judgments pursuant to its statutory authority under section 13-4-102(1) to hear appeals from final judgments of district courts. The reasoning is that Rule 54(b) expressly permits a trial court to direct entry of a final judgment on fewer than all claims when there is no just reason for delay, making that portion appealable immediately.

procedurefamily law

The case involved Troy Cobb's conviction for first-degree sexual assault arising from an incident on Colfax Avenue in Denver, where the victim and defendant offered conflicting accounts of whether the encounter was consensual or forced. The defense sought to introduce a witness to impeach the victim's testimony about her unfamiliarity with the area, but the trial court excluded the witness as a sanction for the defense's failure to disclose the witness before trial. The court of appeals reversed the conviction, and the Colorado Supreme Court affirmed that reversal and remanded for a new trial. The court reasoned that excluding the evidence was an improper sanction because the paramount goal of truth-seeking in criminal proceedings required consideration of less drastic alternatives and the evidence was material to the defense.

criminal lawprocedure

Kathy Riehl sued B & B Livery, Inc. for injuries sustained when she was thrown from a rented horse, claiming the company failed to assess her riding ability, supplied faulty equipment, and engaged in willful or grossly negligent conduct. The trial court granted summary judgment to B&B on the basis of a signed release agreement that waived liability for equine-related injuries, incorporating the statutory warning required by section 13-21-119. The court of appeals reversed, finding the release ambiguous when read with the statute, but the Colorado Supreme Court reversed that decision, concluding under the Heil Valley Ranch test that the agreement clearly expressed the parties' intent to release B&B from liability for injuries arising from inherent risks of equine activities.

torts & liability

The case concerned charges against a Colorado prison inmate for unlawful use of a controlled substance (heroin) and unlawful possession of a controlled substance after he admitted injecting the drug during a hospital visit, though no drugs were recovered from his cell. At the preliminary hearing, the trial court dismissed the possession charge without assessing probable cause, ruling that use and possession were legally indistinguishable and that charging both would violate equal protection. The Colorado Supreme Court held that resolving this legal issue went beyond the narrow purpose of a preliminary hearing, which is limited to determining whether probable cause exists to believe an offense was committed and that the defendant committed it. The court further ruled that the two offenses are distinct under the strict elements test because each requires proof of a fact the other does not, and therefore no equal protection violation arose from charging both. It reversed the dismissal and remanded for a proper probable cause determination on the possession charge.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved an arbitration award of $176,800 to Kay Kutch under an uninsured motorist policy issued by State Farm that had a $100,000 limit; the arbitrators addressed only liability and damages and were not informed of the policy limits. State Farm did not seek to vacate or modify the award within the statutory deadlines but later raised the policy limit as a defense when Kutch sought judicial confirmation of the full award. The trial court confirmed the entire award, holding that State Farm's contractual defense was time-barred, but the court of appeals reversed. The Colorado Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals, ruling that because State Farm failed to raise its policy-limit defense through a timely statutory challenge to the award, the defense could not be asserted in the confirmation proceeding, allowing enforcement of the full amount.

proceduretorts & liability

The case concerned whether a county board of commissioners had standing to sue the state Department of Human Services to compel reductions in statewide social services expenditures when appropriations proved insufficient to cover the state's share. The Colorado Supreme Court held that counties lack standing to seek judicial review of actions by the superior state agency for this purpose. The court reasoned that Colorado statutes provide no express grant of authority allowing counties to challenge state-level decisions on public assistance funding and program reductions, despite counties' role in contributing to and administering such programs through local taxes. It therefore reversed the court of appeals' contrary ruling.

procedurehealthcare

The case involved a dispute over whether a power of attorney authorized the beneficiary's brother to revoke a trust established by her late husband and remove the bank as trustee, and whether the trustee could be held liable for costs incurred in challenging that authority. The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals' decision that the power of attorney granted such authority and that the bank was not liable for the litigation expenses. The court reasoned that while powers of attorney should be narrowly construed, they can authorize trust revocation without specific reference to the trust, and a trustee acting in good faith to seek judicial guidance is entitled to indemnification from the trust estate.

propertyfamily lawprocedure

The case concerned whether letters sent by Travis Nyland's attorney to the claims department of the Regional Transportation District (RTD) satisfied the notice requirements of the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act after Nyland was injured by an RTD bus. The trial court denied RTD's motion to dismiss, finding substantial compliance with the statute's mandate that notice be filed with the public entity's governing body or attorney, but the court of appeals' decision upholding that ruling was reviewed on certiorari. The Colorado Supreme Court reversed, holding that the plain language of section 24-10-109(3) requires actual filing with the governing body or its attorney and does not permit substantial compliance.

proceduretorts & liability

In People v. Paynter, the prosecution appealed a trial court's order suppressing marijuana discovered during a strip search at the county jail after the defendant's arrest on an outstanding warrant. The defendant had been a passenger in a parked car when an officer approached, asked for identification, ran a records check, and learned of the warrant, leading to arrest and the subsequent discovery of contraband during booking. The trial court had ruled that the officer's request for identification amounted to an invalid investigatory stop that tainted the later seizure. The Colorado Supreme Court reversed, holding that a mere request for identification does not convert a consensual encounter into a Fourth Amendment seizure, and therefore vacated the suppression order for further proceedings.

criminal lawprocedure