Editor’s Note: Law Week Colorado edits court opinion summaries for style and, when necessary, length.
The Colorado Court of Appeals addressed for the first time in Colorado whether structural error applies when a district court doesn’t administer the empanelment oath to the jury and the jury renders a verdict. The appeals court concluded the district court’s failure to administer the empanelment oath, when not objected to, is reviewed for plain error.
Toni Theresa Torrez appealed her conviction of two counts of first-degree burglary, one count of attempted first-degree assault and one count of second-degree assault.
At the trial, the jurors never took the empanelment oath, the opinion noted. Neither party brought the oversight to the district court’s attention. But the overall trial record shows the jury was otherwise properly instructed on the law and understood the gravity of the task.
The appeals court addressed the question of what the standard of reversal is when reviewing such an error. The appeals court agreed with the Attorney General’s argument reversal is warranted only if the error is plain.
While the appeals court assumed the error was obvious, it didn’t substantially undermine the proceedings so as to cast serious doubt on the reliability of the judgment. But, the appeals court concluded Torrez’s convictions must merge into a single conviction of first-degree burglary.
The appeals court affirmed the judgment in part, vacated it in part and remanded the case to the district court to amend the mittimus.
People in Interest of E.E.L-T.
Lydia Dawn Toupin, the mother of E.E.L-T, appealed the district court’s order that adopted a magistrate’s order for the child to receive a COVID-19 vaccine. The Colorado Court of Appeals noted the dispute required it to clarify an issue not directly addressed in its 2021 decision In re Marriage of Thomas. The issue was whether the district court must find endangerment before breaking an impasse between parents with joint decision-making responsibility. The appeals court concluded no such finding was required and affirmed the district court’s judgment.