Oral Arguments
Sept. 17-18
Friend v. People
• Whether the Court of Appeals erred when it held that the defendant’s double jeopardy claim was not waived and the trial court’s failure to sua sponte merge the defendant’s child abuse convictions constituted plain error.
• Whether child abuse causing death as part of a pattern of conduct under section 18-6-401(1)(a), (7)(a)(I), C.R.S., merges into first-degree murder child abuse under section 18-3-102(1)(f), C.R.S., when they are based on identical evidence and the death results solely from accumulated injuries.
• Whether the Court of Appeals erred when it held that Colorado’s child abuse statute, section 18-6-401, C.R.S., only provides alternative means of committing a single offense of child abuse; and the defendant may only be convicted of a single count of child abuse for numerous acts of torture and abuse that took place at different times over several days.
People ex rel.; Dick Wolfe, State Engineer for the State of Colorado; and Craig Cotten, Division Engineer for Water Division No. 3 v. Sease
• Whether the trial court erred in finding both criminal and remedial contempt where there was no identification of Gregg Sease as the contemnor.
• Whether the trial court erred in shifting the burden of proof to the Defendant.
Cowen v. People
• Whether the Court of Appeals erred by affirming the trial court’s imposition of restitution on an acquitted count for losses that did not result from the criminal conduct that was the basis for the petitioner’s conviction.
Garner v. People
• Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s admission of the in-court identifications of the defendant.
Marko v. People
• Whether a defendant who is in the military is in custody prior to being advised of his Miranda rights when ordered by a superior officer to attend an interrogation conducted by civilian police officers at a military police station.
• Whether the Court of Appeals erred in concluding that, pursuant to People v. Novotny, 2014 CO 18, the trial court’s denial of the petitioner’s challenge for cause of a prospective juror who could not fairly apply the law with respect to the insanity defense was not subject to reversal.
People v. Lozano-Ruiz
• Whether the district court erred in holding that omitting the definition of ‘sexual penetration’ from the jury instructions contributed to the conviction and therefore constituted reversible plain error.
Mountjoy v. People
• Whether Apprendi v. New Jersey, and U.S. v. Gaudin require a jury to make the ultimate determination of ‘extraordinary aggravating circumstances’ under Colorado’s residual sentence aggravator, where the requisite finding presents a mixed question of law and fact.
• Whether a violation of the right to jury trial on a sentence aggravator can be harmless under Washington v. Recuenco where the jury probably would have found the historical facts the judge relied on in finding the aggravator was present, but there is substantial doubt the jury would have drawn the ultimate conclusion that the historical facts proved the aggravator.
• Whether a violation of the right to a jury trial on a sentence aggravator can be harmless under Washington v. Recuenco, where the prosecution neither charged the aggravator in the information nor gave pre-verdict notice it sought aggravation.
People v. Janis
• Whether an in-custody defendant’s waiver of her right to be present at trial must be preceded by a formal advisement and waiver process, even though the record shows that the defendant chose not to be present during the victim’s testimony.
• Whether there is sufficient evidence on the record to determine, under the totality of the circumstances, that the defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived her right to be present during the victim’s testimony.
Cert Petitions Granted
Sept. 4
Vigil v. People
• The judgment of the Colorado Court of Appeals is vacated, and the case is remanded to the Colorado Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of People v. Rediger.
• Whether a defendant waives his right to appellate review of an erroneous jury instruction by his attorney stating, “As far as I can determine, they’re fine.”
Colorado Medical Board v. McLaughlin
• Whether an agency investigative subpoena can have a lawfully authorized purpose even if the investigation was prompted by a complaint from a different agency under a referral policy that violated the Open Meetings Law or Administrative Procedure Act.
Boland v. Colorado Medical Board
• Whether an agency investigative subpoena can have a lawfully authorized purpose even if the investigation was prompted by a complaint from a different agency under a referral policy that violated the Open Meetings Law or Administrative Procedure Act.
Margerum v. People
• Whether the Court of Appeals erred by announcing a new rule that a witness’s probationary status is not admissible to impeach that witness for bias unless there is a “logical connection” between the probationary status and the witness’s potential motive for testifying.
• Whether a single physical act of assault, with no additional physical action or verbal threat, can be sufficient to support both an assault conviction and a menacing conviction.
Aug. 20
Town of Breckenridge v. Egencia, et al
• Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the online travel companies are not required to collect the Town of Breckenridge’s accommodation tax from their customers under the town’s town code.
July 2
Carousel Farms Metropolitan District v. Woodcrest Homes, Inc.
• Whether the Court of Appeals should review for clear error a trial court’s determination that a condemning authority sufficiently demonstrated that a taking is for a public use.
• Whether the Court of Appeals erred in concluding a metropolitan district failed to prove condemnation of a parcel was for a public use and necessary, where the subdivision that would principally benefit from the condemnation did not exist at the time of the taking and development of the subdivision was conditioned on the district’s acquisition of the parcel.
• Whether the Court of Appeals erred in concluding that a metropolitan district’s condemnation of a parcel violated section 38-1-101(1)(b), C.R.S., when the condemned parcel would be dedicated to the public and would not be transferred to a private entity.
People v. Iannicelli
• Whether the jury tampering statute requires proof of an intent to influence a juror’s vote, opinion, decision, or other action in a specifically identifiable case.
• Whether the jury tampering statute implicitly modifies the definition of “juror” set forth in section 18-8-601(1), C.R.S.
People v. Brandt
• Whether the jury tampering statute requires proof of an intent to influence a juror’s vote, opinion, decision, or other action in a specifically identifiable case.
• Whether the jury tampering statute implicitly modifies the definition of “juror” set forth in section 18-8-601(1), C.R.S.
Ali v. People
• Whether a self-defense instruction modeled on the self-defense statute which refers to a single assailant is, by itself, sufficient to inform the jury to consider the totality of the circumstances, including multiple assailants.
• Whether a preserved challenge to a self-defense instruction is reviewed for constitutional or nonconstitutional harmless error.
• Whether the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury to consider multiple assailants in evaluating petitioner’s self-defense claim was harmless.
— Julia Cardi