The Supreme Court reviewed whether the Court of Appeals erred in determining that threatening messages the juvenile defendant posted on Twitter were protected speech under the First Amendment. In so doing, the Court refined its earlier statements of the general framework for distinguishing a true threat from constitutionally protected speech and offered specific guidance for applying that test to statements communicated online.

The Court held that a true threat is a statement that, considered in context and under the totality of the circumstances, an intended or foreseeable recipient would reasonably perceive as a serious expression of intent to commit an act of unlawful violence. In determining whether a statement is a true threat, a reviewing court must examine the words used, but it must also consider the context in which the statement was made. Particularly where the alleged threat is communicated online, the contextual factors courts should consider include, but are not limited to (1) the statement’s role in a broader exchange, if any, including surrounding events; (2) the medium or platform through which the statement was communicated, including any distinctive conventions or architectural features; (3) the manner in which the statement was conveyed (e.g., anonymously or not, privately or publicly); (4) the relationship between the speaker and recipient(s); and (5) the subjective reaction of the statement’s intended or foreseeable recipient(s).

The Court of Appeals’ judgment was reversed and the case was remanded with instructions to return the case to the juvenile court to reconsider the adjudication under the refined framework.

The Supreme Court held that the trial court’s exclusion of defendant’s parents during the testimony of two of his children constituted a partial closure of the courtroom. Further, because the trial court made no findings pursuant to Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (1984), before closing the courtroom, and a remand for additional findings cannot remedy that oversight, it violated defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to a public trial. Because that error was structural, Jones is entitled to a new trial.

The Court also concluded that it cannot discern the legislature’s intent regarding a defendant’s criminal liability under the child abuse statute for injury he or she caused to an unborn fetus who is later born alive with the consequences of that injury. Under the rule of lenity, the Court therefore vacated defendant’s conviction for child abuse and concluded that he may not be retried on that charge.

The Supreme Court considered whether a trial judge reversibly erred by permitting his wife (Juror 25) to serve on a jury in a criminal case over which he presided. Because defendant did not object to Juror 25 sitting on the jury, the Court concluded that he waived his challenge as to that juror. The Court also concluded that in the absence of a contemporaneous objection, the trial judge did not have a duty to excuse Juror 25 on his own or to disqualify himself.

Accordingly, the Court of Appeals’ judgment was affirmed.

In this original proceeding, the Supreme Court considered when a motion to restrict parenting time pursuant to CRS § 14-10-129(4) requires a hearing within 14 days of the motion’s filing. The Court held that the particularity requirement in CRCP 7(b)(1) provides the proper standard to review a § 14-10-129(4) motion. Here, because respondent’s motion to restrict parenting time was sufficiently particular under Rule 7(b)(1), a hearing on that motion was required within 14 days pursuant to § 14-10-129(4). Accordingly, the magistrate erred in not holding a hearing and the district court erred in adopting the magistrate’s order.