Editor’s Note: Law Week Colorado edits court opinion summaries for style and, when necessary, length.
A jury convicted James Clayton Johnson of enticement of a child. In 2022, a division of the Colorado Court of Appeals vacated Johnson’s conviction on the grounds the evidence was insufficient to prove the offense of enticement. Specifically, the division concluded Johnson’s conduct, taken together with the Colorado Rule of Evidence 404(b) prior act evidence (assuming it was properly admitted), was insufficient to show Johnson had attempted to invite or persuade a child to enter his truck, or that he intended to commit unlawful sexual contact.
The division vacated Johnson’s conviction without addressing his challenge to the admissibility of the Rule 404(b) evidence or the merits of his other arguments on appeal. The Colorado Supreme Court granted the prosecution’s petition for certiorari to review the division’s sufficiency determination.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the state Supreme Court held the division erred in concluding the evidence was insufficient to sustain Johnson’s conviction. It rejected the appeals court’s reading of the word “attempt” as referring to the inchoate crime of “attempt” defined in state statute. Instead, the court interpreted “attempt” in accordance with its plain meaning. The court then held Johnson’s words and actions, taken together and viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, constituted sufficient evidence for a reasonable person to conclude Johnson attempted to invite or persuade the child to enter his vehicle with the intent to commit unlawful sexual contact.
The Supreme Court reversed the division’s sufficiency determination, reinstated Johnson’s conviction and remanded the case back to the Court of Appeals to evaluate Johnson’s remaining arguments on appeal.
Khalil Jamandre Sanders shot and injured Jamie Vasquez during a road rage incident. Roughly nine months later, the case proceeded to trial. During voir dire of the jury venire, the prosecution asked prospective jurors about any prior experience that they may have had with road rage incidents. Defense counsel requested the judge recuse and disqualify herself from presiding over this case after she disclosed she had been shot at during a road rage incident a few years prior in Nevada.
The Colorado Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider whether a division of the Colorado Court of Appeals erred by determining a judge who had experienced criminal conduct similar to that at issue in the case wasn’t disqualified under the due process clauses of the U.S. and Colorado Constitutions; and if so, whether reversal is required.
Although the high court concluded the division applied too strict a standard when it required a showing of actual bias in order to support a disqualification motion, it agreed disqualification wasn’t warranted on the facts of this case.
The state Supreme Court affirmed the division’s judgment, albeit on different grounds.