November 02, 2017
2017 COA 136. No. 14CA2249. People v. Tardif.
Jury Instructions—Burden of Proof—Heat of Passion Provocation—Attempted Second Degree Murder—First Degree Assault—Mitigating Factor—Evidence—Due Process—Self-Defense—Deadly Physical Force—Slow Motion Video—Unfair Prejudice—Prosecutorial Misconduct.
Tardif’s friend Soto was at a skate park and got into an argument with the victim. Tardif and Soto were members of the same gang, and the victim was wearing the colors of a rival gang. Soto called Tardif and when Tardif arrived, Tardif and Soto walked up to the victim, and Tardif shot him once in the abdomen. The victim fled and survived. Other people in the skate park recorded video of part of the initial argument between Soto and the victim as well as the shooting. A jury found Tardif guilty of attempted second degree murder, first degree assault, conspiracy to commit first degree assault, and three crime of violence counts.
On appeal, Tardif argued that the trial court erred by not instructing the jury that the prosecution had the burden to prove the absence of heat of passion provocation beyond a reasonable doubt. Heat of passion provocation is a mitigating factor for attempted second degree murder and first degree assault. Here, the heat of passion provocation instructions failed to inform the jury that the prosecution had to prove the absence of heat of passion provocation beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, the instructions, considered together, failed to properly instruct the jury on the prosecution’s burden of proof. Because Tardif presented sufficient evidence for a heat of passion provocation instruction, the error lowered the prosecution’s burden of proof and violated Tardif’s constitutional right to due process. Tardif also argued that the trial court’s self-defense instructions included several reversible errors. Self-defense is not an affirmative defense to conspiracy to commit first degree assault, and therefore, the court did not err in failing to instruct the jury that it was. But the trial court erred by instructing the jury on when deadly physical force may be used in self-defense because deadly physical force requires death, and here the victim did not die.
Tardif additionally argued that the trial court erred by admitting slow motion video recordings of the shooting. Although this evidence was relevant to explain the events around the shooting and to determine whether defendant acted with aggression or in self-defense, the probative value of the slow motion recordings was very low. This evidence was also cumulative of the real-time recording that was also admitted. Further, because Tardif’s state of mind at the time of the shooting was a disputed issue, the slow motion recordings’ low probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. The slow-motion recordings may have portrayed Tardif’s actions as more premeditated than they actually were. The trial court abused its discretion by failing to weigh the slow-motion recordings’ probative value against their danger of unfair prejudice.
Tardif further argued that two statements by the prosecutor during closing argument constituted misconduct and required reversal. The Court of Appeals did not doubt the reliability of Tardif’s conspiracy conviction and concluded that the prosecutor’s allegedly improper statements did not constitute plain error.
The conspiracy to commit first degree assault conviction was affirmed. The remaining convictions were reversed and the case was remanded with directions.
2017 COA 137. No. 16CA0849. Agilent Technologies, Inc. v. Colorado Department of Revenue.
Holding Company—Property—Corporate Income Tax Returns—Combined Returns.
Agilent Technologies, Inc. (Agilent) is incorporated in Delaware, but during the years at issue (tax years 2000 to 2007), it maintained research and development and manufacturing sites in Colorado. Agilent timely filed corporate income tax returns for these years. Agilent Technologies World Trade, Inc. (WT) is a subsidiary of Agilent and is incorporated in Delaware. It was formed as a holding company to own foreign entities operating solely outside the United States. As a holding company, WT does not own or rent property, has no payroll, and does not advertise or sell products or services of its own.
For federal tax purposes, WT and the foreign entities elected to be taxed as a single corporation. Agilent did not include WT in its corporate tax returns for the years at issue. The Department of Revenue (Department) issued notices of corporate income tax deficiency requiring that Agilent include WT in its Colorado combined returns for the years at issue and assessed tax, interest, and penalties. Agilent contested the Department’s adjustments, and the director upheld the notices. Agilent sought review in the district court. The district court concluded that the Department was prohibited from requiring Agilent to include WT in its Colorado combined corporate income tax returns and entered summary judgment for Agilent.
On appeal, the Department contended that the district court erred when it held that WT was not an includible C corporation under CRS § 39-22- 303(12)(c). Conversely, Agilent argued that CRS § 39-22-303(8) required exclusion of WT from its combined return. CRS § 39-22-303(12)(c) requires inclusion of a corporation in a combined report if “more than twenty percent of the C corporation’s property and payroll” is assigned to locations inside the United States. Because WT had no property factors, although it wasn’t prohibited from including WT, Agilent was not required to include WT in its Colorado combined tax return.
The Department also contended that the district court erred when it ruled that, as a matter of law, CRS § 39-22-303(6) could not be applied as an alternative basis for including WT in Agilent’s tax return. It also contended that the economic substance doctrine should be applied to permit taxation of WT even in the absence of specific statutory authorization. CRS § 39-22-303(6) authorizes the Department to allocate income and deductions among corporations that are owned or controlled by the same interests on a fair and impartial basis to clearly reflect income and avoid abuse. However, CRS § 39-22-303(6) cannot be applied to allocate income among affiliated corporations that were not otherwise includible under CRS §§ 39-22-303(8)–(12). Accordingly, the district court did not err in concluding that CRS § 39-22- 303(6) did not provide a basis for including WT in Agilent’s tax return. Further, it was not alleged that WT lacks a business purpose apart from reducing tax liability. Therefore, the economic substance doctrine does not provide an independent basis in this case for including WT in Agilent’s combined return.
The judgment was affirmed.
2017 COA 138. No. 16CA1382. People in re T.C.C.
After T.C.C. removed a package from the front step of Ipson’s neighbor’s house, Ipson confronted T.C.C. and told him to return the package. T.C.C. then slapped, punched, and swore at Ipson. A judgment was entered adjudicating T.C.C. delinquent of an act that would constitute robbery and third degree assault if committed by an adult. At sentencing, T.C.C. asked the court to waive all mandatory fees based on his indigence. Instead of ruling on the motion, the court deferred this decision to probation.
On appeal, T.C.C. contended that the prosecutor improperly vouched for Ipson’s credibility and truthfulness when he argued, “Certainly Mr. Ipson has no reason to make up that he got struck numerous times from [T.C.C.].” The prosecutor’s argument was a reasonable inference from the record and not improper.
T.C.C. also contended that the trial court erred in delegating the waiver decision to probation and in permitting a waiver of fees based on “good behavior.” The plain language of the statutes permits only the court to waive fees and surcharges based solely on a finding of indigence, not based on good behavior. Therefore, the court erred by not ruling on T.C.C.’s motion.
The judgment and sentence were affirmed and the case was remanded for the trial court to rule on T.C.C.’s motion for waiver of fees and costs based on indigence.
2017 COA 139. No. 16CA1916. People in re D.B.
Dependency and Neglect—Indian Child Welfare Act—Termination—Expert Witness—Hearsay.
This dependency and neglect proceeding was governed by the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). Mother’s parental rights were terminated after the trial court determined that continued custody of the child by one of the parents would likely result in serious emotional or physical damage to the child due to the parents’ extensive substance abuse, extensive domestic violence, lack of housing, and lack of income to meet the child’s needs.
On appeal, mother contended that the trial court erred in terminating her parental rights without testimony from a qualified expert witness that her continued custody of the child would likely result in serious emotional or physical damage to the child, as required by the ICWA. The ICWA provides that a court may only terminate parental rights if it determines that there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the child is likely to suffer serious emotional or physical damage if the child remains in the parent’s care, and such determination must be supported by evidence that includes testimony from qualified expert witnesses. The statute does not mandate, however, that an expert witness specifically opine that the child is likely to suffer emotional or physical damage in the parent’s custody. Rather, the expert testimony must constitute some of the evidence that supports the court’s finding of the likelihood of serious emotional or physical damage to the child. Here, although the expert witness’s testimony did not track the ICWA language, the record as a whole contains sufficient evidence, including testimony from a qualified expert witness, to support the trial court’s determination that the child would likely suffer serious emotional or physical damage if placed in mother’s care.
Mother also contended that the trial court erred in relying on inadmissible hearsay statements in the termination report to conclude that she had failed to maintain sobriety and that the child would thus likely suffer serious emotional or physical damage if he remained in her custody. The trial court, however, had access to other admissible evidence to support its determination that mother had failed to maintain sobriety. Further, this was not the sole basis to terminate mother’s parental rights.
The judgment was affirmed.