Summaries of Published Opinions
| Publication year | 2017 |
| Pages | 91 |
COLORADO SUPREME COURT
October 2, 2017
2017 CO 90. No. 15SC912. People v. Ahuero.
Criminal Law—Continuances.
This case required the Supreme Court to decide whether a trial court abused its discretion in denying a continuance that defense counsel requested seeking more time to prepare for trial. At the time the continuance was requested, the trial court considered the following factors: (1) defense counsel would have three weeks to prepare for a two- or three-day trial involving eight witnesses and no physical evidence, but defense counsel refused to make specific arguments on why the additional time was needed; (2) the trial court would have had to rearrange its docket and possibly hand of the case to a different judge; (3) priority is given to cases involving the sexual assault of a child; and (4) the victim’s family wanted to resolve the case promptly.
The Supreme Court concluded that, under these circumstances, the trial court’s decision to deny a continuance was not so manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable, or unfair to constitute an abuse of discretion. Therefore, the Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ judgment and remanded the case for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
2017 CO 91. No. 12SC488. People v. Torrez.
Criminal Law—Sentencing—Presentence Confinement Credit.
The Supreme Court reviewed the Court of Appeals’ opinion crediting defendant for a confinement period after a not guilty by reason of insanity verdict on an unrelated charge. Under CRS § 18-1.3-405, credit is to be given only where the presentence confinement is caused by the charge on which the defendant is being sentenced. Considering Massey v. People, 736 P.2d 19 (Colo. 1987), and People v. Freeman, 735 P.2d 879 (Colo. 1987), the Court concluded that defendant was not entitled to presentence confinement credit for her confinement before or after the not guilty by reason of insanity verdict. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals in part and reversed in part, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
2017 CO 92. No. 17SA37. People v. Nguyen.
Miranda Warnings.
The Supreme Court held that a translated Miranda warning stating that if the suspect waived his right to be silent, “[a]ll you say will and may be used as evidence in court,” reasonably conveyed to defendant that anything he said could be used against him in court. By informing him that his statements could be used in court, the translation included the concept that the statements could be used against him (as well as for him) in court. The Court also held that a Miranda warning stating that “if you do not have money to hire an...
To continue reading
Request your trial