Editor’s Note: Law Week Colorado edits court opinion summaries for style and, when necessary, length.
The Colorado General Assembly enacted Colorado’s rape shield statute to protect victims of sexual assault from “humiliating and embarrassing public fishing expeditions into their past sexual conduct,” according to the opinion.
To accomplish this goal, the statute limits the introduction of certain evidence. That evidence is presumed irrelevant, with only a few exceptions, according to the opinion.
One of those exceptions is evidence that “the victim … has a history of false reporting of sexual assaults,” but this type of evidence may only be admitted at trial if the party seeking to introduce it follows the specified procedure, according to the opinion.
Reynold Ramcharan appealed his conviction of sexual assault on a child and contributing to the delinquency of a minor.
In this appeal, the Colorado Court of Appeals considered the sufficiency of an offer of proof consisting of a summary of statements of witnesses, with whom defense counsel apparently never spoke, that lacks any explanation of whether the statements were admissible.
The appeals court held that such an offer of proof fails because it doesn’t establish that the witnesses’ statements were admissible.
The appeals court affirmed.
The people appealed the district court’s order concluding that it lacked authority to resentence Octavio Hernandez-Escajeda, because of the remand instructions in the 2022 Colorado Court of Appeals case People v. Hernandez-Escajeda.
The appeals court disagreed with the district court. It concluded that a district court generally has inherent authority to resentence on remaining convictions after an appellate mandate vacates a conviction. It also concluded that nothing in the prior appeals case precluded the district court from resentencing Hernandez-Escajeda on one of his other convictions.
The appeals court reversed the order and remanded.
In re the Marriage of Nevedrova
This case required the Colorado Court of Appeals to decide whether an account established under the Colorado Uniform Transfers to Minors Act may be considered marital property.
In this dissolution of marriage proceedings between Dimitri Nevedrov and Cherly Laslo Nevedrova, Nevedrov asserted that the district court lacked jurisdiction to divide the balance of an account established in the parties’ child’s name under the UTMA.
The appeals court concluded that if an account was created under the UTMA and funds were properly transferred to it, the account is not marital property. But it also concluded that the record in this case was insufficient to determine whether the account in question was created in compliance with that statute.
The appeals court reversed and remanded.