Colorado Supreme Court Opinions

January 22, 2018

2018 CO 3. No. 16SC112. Norton v. Rocky Mountain Planned Parenthood, Inc.

Constitutional Law—Colo. Const. Art. V, § 50—Motion to Dismiss. 

In this case, the Supreme Court considered whether petitioner’s complaint alleged a violation of article V, section 50 of the Colorado Constitution sufficient to overcome a motion to dismiss. The Court held that to state a claim for relief under section 50, a complaint must allege that the state made a payment to a person or entity—whether directly to that person or entity, or indirectly through an intermediary—for the purpose of compensating them for performing an abortion and that such an abortion was actually performed. Because petitioner’s complaint did not allege that the state made such a payment, the complaint failed to state a claim for relief under CRCP 12(b)(5). Accordingly, the Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

In this case, the Supreme Court considered whether petitioner’s complaint alleged a violation of article V, section 50 of the Colorado Constitution sufficient to overcome a motion to dismiss. The Court held that to state a claim for relief under section 50, a complaint must allege that the state made a payment to a person or entity—whether directly to that person or entity, or indirectly through an intermediary—for the purpose of compensating them for performing an abortion and that such an abortion was actually performed. Because petitioner’s complaint did not allege that the state made such a payment, the complaint failed to state a claim for relief under CRCP 12(b)(5). Accordingly, the Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

Read More..

2018 CO 4. No. 13SC1017. People v. Bueno.

Motion for New Trial—Evidence.

In this case, the Supreme Court considered two questions. The first is whether a Crim. P. 33(c) motion for a new trial is time-barred because it was filed more than one year after the defendant’s conviction, and thus arguably more than one year after “entry of judgment.” The second is whether the trial court erred in granting a new trial after concluding that the prosecution violated Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), by failing to provide to the defense evidence that the prosecution had obtained at the outset of the investigation until after defendant’s conviction. The Court held that “entry of judgment,” for the purposes of Rule 33(c), does not occur until both a verdict or finding of guilt and the imposition of a sentence. The Court concluded that, applying Brady’s disclosure requirements, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting a motion for a new trial.

Read More..

2018 CO 5. No. 15SC448. People v. Griego.

Attempted Recklessness—Attempted Reckless Manslaughter—Equal Protection.

In this case, the Supreme Court considered whether the requirement in the attempted reckless manslaughter and attempted second degree assault statutes that a defendant place “another person” at risk of death or serious bodily injury necessitates that an actual, discernible person be placed at risk, or whether “another person” can refer to the public at large. The Court concluded that the statutes at issue require a showing of a risk to an actual, discernible person and that a risk to the public at large is insufficient. Here, because the People presented no evidence that defendant’s actions put any particular person at risk, the Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ judgment reversing his convictions.

Read More..