May 30, 2017
2017 CO 55. No. 16SC444. England v. Amerigas Propane and Indemnity Insurance Company of North America.
Workers’ Compensation—Mutual Mistake of Material Fact—Colorado Workers’ Compensation Act.
In this case, the Supreme Court considered whether a provision of the mandatory form settlement document promulgated by the Director of the Division of Workers’ Compensation waives an injured employee’s statutory right under CRS § 8-43-204(1) to reopen a settlement based on a mutual mistake of material fact. The Court concluded that it does not because provisions of the form document must yield to statutory rights. Accordingly, the Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
2017 CO 56. No. 14SC820. People v. Opana.
Criminal Trials.
The People petitioned for review of the Court of Appeals’ judgment reversing Opana’s conviction for second degree murder in the shooting death of one of his housemates. See People v. Opana, No. 10CA1987 (Colo.App. May 29, 2014). The district court instructed the jury as to the use of deadly physical force in defense of one’s person. In consideration of the statutory definition of the term “deadly physical force,” which limits the applicability of the term to “force, the intended, natural, and probable consequence of which is to produce death,” the Court of Appeals determined that there was adequate evidence produced at trial for the jury to have found that Opana used physical force not rising to the level of “deadly” physical force, and it concluded that in this case the failure of the trial court to instruct the jury, sua sponte, on the use of physical force generally amounted to plain error. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case for consideration of defendant’s remaining assignments of error because the Court of Appeals misconstrued the definition of “deadly physical force,” and when that statutory term is properly construed, the evidence at trial did not support an instruction on self-defense predicated on the use of other-than-“deadly” physical force.
2017 CO 57. No. 17SA6. In re Title, Ballot Title and Submission Clause for 2017–2018 #4.
Single Subject—Fiscal Impact Statement Abstract—Standard of Review.
The Supreme Court held that Initiative #4 contains a single subject: limiting housing growth in Colorado. The Court also considered, for the first time, its authority to review an abstract prepared pursuant to CRS § 1-40-105.5 and the proper standard to apply when reviewing such an abstract. The Court held that CRS § 1-40-107 grants the Court reviewing authority, and the proper standard of review is the same standard the Court applies to the single-subject and clear-title requirements—that is, the Court draws all legitimate presumptions in favor of the propriety of the Title Board’s decision and will only overturn the Title Board’s decision in a clear case. Under that standard, the Court upheld the Title Board’s approval of the abstract at issue in this case. Therefore, the Court affirmed the actions of the Title Board.