James v. People
Dustin James was initially charged with two counts of distribution of a controlled substance, one count of possession with intent to manufacture a controlled substance, and one count of possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance, all but the last of which were dismissed before trial. He was acquitted of the charged offense of possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine but was convicted of the lesser offense of possession. He was sentenced to three years of intensive supervised probation.
James sought review of the Court of Appeals’ judgment affirming his conviction for possession of methamphetamine. Upon realizing that it had failed to discharge the alternate juror before the jury retired to deliberate, the district court recalled and dismissed the alternate; instructed the jury to continue with deliberations uninfluenced by anything the alternate may have said or done; and denied the defense motion for dismissal or mistrial. The Colorado Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court’s error in allowing the alternate juror to retire with the jury and the juror’s presence for part of the deliberations were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, and after rejecting James’s other assignments of error, affirmed his conviction.
The Supreme Court held that the evidence proving the defendant’s guilt of the offense of possession was overwhelming, and therefore the district court’s failure to recall an alternate juror for approximately 10 minutes amounted, under the facts of the case, to harmless error. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals was affirmed.
Johnson v. Schonlaw
Albert Johnson filed suit against VCG Restaurants Denver, Inc., d/b/a/ PT’s All Nude, its managing agency and several its employees, including Ryan Lee Schonlaw, asserting claims arising from injuries he sustained just outside the nightclub at closing. One of the defendants was dismissed before trial, and of the remaining defendants, the jury returned verdicts finding Schonlaw liable on claims of battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress and VCG liable for battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent supervision. The district court ultimately entered judgments of $74,452.83 against Schonlaw and $246,462 against VCG.
Johnson sought review of the Colorado Court of Appeals’ judgment reversing jury verdicts in his favor on personal injury claims against Schonlaw and VCG Restaurants. At the close of the case, the district court overruled the objections of Schonlaw and VCG to its announced decision to allow the alternate to deliberate to verdict with the other jurors.
The Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court had erred in allowing an alternate juror to participate in jury deliberations over the objection of a party, and that the error gave rise to a presumption of prejudice, which remained unrebutted by Johnson, and therefore required reversal. The Colorado Supreme Court reversed the decision, holding that, because the error did not affect the substantial rights of any defendant, it should have been disregarded as harmless, as required by C.R.C.P. 61.
Perfect Place v. Semler
In this quiet title action, the Colorado Supreme Court reviewed whether the owner of a garage condominium unit validly subdivided the unit under section 38-33.3-213, C.R.S. (2018) of the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act by merely painting or marking lines on the garage wall, and thereafter separately conveying the spaces thus marked as individual condominium parking units.
Because section 38-33.3-213(3) provides that “no subdivision of units shall be effected” without executing and recording the necessary amendments to the condominium declaration, and because no documents were recorded in connection with his purported subdivision, the Supreme Court held that the owner did not accomplish a valid subdivision of the garage unit.
The Supreme Court further held that a quitclaim deed obtained from the owner was not void for fraud in the factum. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine the resulting chain of title for the disputed parking units.
People v. Gutierrez
In this interlocutory appeal, the Colorado Supreme Court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the People’s request to have their witness testify remotely via Skype.
Trial courts have broad discretion to control the manner in which witnesses offer testimony, and a decision to prohibit a witness from testifying is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Because the trial court worked extensively to accommodate the witness, the People were on notice about the importance of the witness appearing in-person, and because denying the People’s request to allow the witness to testify remotely is not outcome determinative, the Supreme Court concludes that the trial court did not abuse its discretion and affirmed the lower court’s ruling.
Lewis v. Taylor
The Colorado Supreme Court held that under the Colorado Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, an innocent investor who profits from his investment in an equity-type Ponzi scheme, lacking any right to a return on investment, does not provide reasonably equivalent value based simply on the time value of his investment. In this case, an investor unwittingly invested in a Ponzi scheme. This opinion is covered in-depth on page 13.
In Re People v. Brooks
This case requires the Colorado Supreme Court to determine whether Colorado’s recently enacted sentencing scheme for juvenile offenders who received unconstitutional mandatory sentences to life in prison without the possibility of parole violates the Special Legislation Clause of the Colorado Constitution. They concluded that it does not. This opinion is covered in-depth on page 12.