Editor’s Note: Law Week Colorado edits court opinion summaries for style and, when necessary, length.
The Colorado Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed a judgment involving a vehicular homicide.
According to court records, a jury convicted Todd Grudznske of extreme indifference first-degree murder, vehicular homicide (DUI), three counts of attempted extreme indifference first-degree assault and three counts of careless driving (one was merged into the other two).
These charges stem from a fatal vehicle crash in 2018 where Grudznske’s truck hit a vehicle stopped at a red light, pushing the stopped vehicle into an intersection where it was hit by multiple cars. Grudznske’s collision with the stopped vehicle caused the death of the driver, according to court records, and resulted in injuries to people in three other vehicles.
After the collision, Grudznske attempted to flee but his truck was stuck. His blood was drawn about 90 minutes after the collision and showed a blood alcohol content of .341.
The trial court sentenced Grudznske to life in prison on the extreme indifference first-degree murder conviction and to lesser concurrent sentences on the remaining convictions.
On appeal, Grudznske made multiple contentions including that the trial court violated his right to equal protection of laws by allowing him to be charged with and convicted of extreme indifference first-degree murder in addition to vehicular homicide (DUI). Grudznske also argued he was deprived of equal protection by being charged with attempted extreme indifference first-degree assault rather than attempted vehicular assault (DUI).
The appeals court wrote the Colorado General Assembly passed laws criminalizing driving under the influence of alcohol including separate crimes for vehicular homicide (DUI) and attempted vehicular assault (DUI). The general assembly also passed laws allowing for the prosecution of someone that causes the death or the attempt to assault another through conduct that shows an extreme indifference to human life.
The appeals court had to decide whether a defendant can be prosecuted for both extreme indifference first-degree murder and vehicular homicide (DUI) and attempted extreme indifference first-degree assault instead of attempted vehicular assault (DUI).
The appeals court found the prosecution and resulting convictions under the DUI laws and the general criminal statutes addressing extreme indifference crimes don’t violate a defendant’s rights to equal protection and are consistent with the general assembly’s intent when it enacted the laws.
The judgment was affirmed.
The Gazette et al. v. Bourgerie
The Colorado Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed a judgment involving requests for records.
The case required the appeals court to decide if the Colorado Peace Officer Standards and Training Board, or POST, is a criminal justice agency under the Colorado Criminal Justice Records Act.
POST establishes certification standards, certifies qualified officers and revokes certification for officers that violate its standards. At the time of the records request at issue, the custodian of POST’s records was Natalie Hanlon Leh, Colorado’s chief deputy attorney general. At the time, POST’s database contained records of more than 50,000 active and inactive peace officers.
According to a footnote, the General Assembly later amended the POST Act to require POST to create a searchable, publicly available database that tracks certain peace officer information. The new database doesn’t contain most of the records the plaintiffs wanted.
In August 2019, the Invisible Institute, which is a nonprofit journalistic production company, submitted a request for POST records for all officers certified by the state which included information like their name, date of decertification if applicable and reason of separation if applicable.
The Invisible Institute characterized the request as one for public records under the Colorado Open Records Act. POST responded by directing the Invisible Institute to a public website containing minutes from POST board meetings since 2012 where a peace officer was decertified. According to a footnote, POST also provided a PDF of its meeting minutes spanning 2000-2012 where a peace officer was decertified, apparently because the minutes weren’t on the website, according to the court of appeals.
POST asserted the request was governed by the CCJRA which gives the custodian of the criminal justice records discretion to deny a request in full or in part. Hanlon Leh deemed the remaining materials criminal justice records and denied the remainder of the request.
In June 2020, a Gazette reporter submitted a request for records of the POST database tracking certification, training and personnel changes of law enforcement officers in Colorado and any POST database tracking decertification of law enforcement officers in the state.
POST responded by directing the reporter to the same public website of its meeting minutes. POST again asserted this inquiry was governed by CCJRA and denied the remainder of the request.
The reporter submitted another request in August 2020 for POST records, addressing instances when any person is appointed or separated as a certified peace officer per POST Rules 10, 11 and 12. POST responded by providing the number of certified peace officers who had been appointed or separated in the preceding eight months. Once again POST asserted the remainder of the inquiry was governed by CCJRA and denied the rest of the request.
The reporter on behalf of the Gazette and the Invisible Institute sent a joint letter to POST stating an intent to apply for an order to show cause why the custodian shouldn’t permit the inspection of records. After the parties didn’t reach a resolution during a statutorily mandated two-week negotiation time frame, the Gazette, the reporter and Invisible Institute applied for an order to show cause.
The district court had to determine whether CORA applied, which the plaintiffs argued, or if CCJRA applied, which POST argued. Under the CCJRA, criminal justice records include materials that are made, maintained or kept by any criminal justice agency in the state for use in the exercise of functions that are required or authorized by state law or administrative rule.
The matter then depended on whether POST was a criminal justice agency under statute. The district court concluded POST is a criminal justice agency.
The plaintiffs appealed. But the appeals court found POST is a criminal justice agency because it collects arrest and criminal records information as part of its revocation process and is thereby performing an activity directly related to the collection and storage of arrest and criminal records information. The appeals court also found the custodian of POST’s records didn’t abuse their discretion.
The judgment was affirmed.