Summaries of Published Opinions, 0717 COBJ, Vol. 46 No. 7 Pg. 93
COLORADO SUPREME COURT
May 1, 2017
2017 CO 37. No. 13SC791. Romero v. People. Criminal Law—Expert Testimony—Jury Access to Exhibits.
This case required the Supreme Court to address two issues it recently addressed in two other cases, People v. Jefferson, 2017 CO 35, and Venalonzo v. People, 2017 CO 9. Specifically, the Court resolved (1) whether a trial court commits plain error when it fails to limit, sua sponte, a jury’s access to recorded statements during jury deliberations, and (2) whether a trial court abuses its discretion when it allows a police officer to testify as a lay witness about the concept of grooming in the context of sexual predation. The Court held that a trial court does not commit plain error when it does not limit a jury’s access to recorded statements without an objection, and that a trial court abuses its discretion when it allows a witness to testify about grooming without qualifying that witness as an expert. The Court therefore reversed defendant’s convictions and remanded the case for a new trial.
2017 CO 38. No. 15SC513. McShane v. Stirling Ranch Property Owners Association, Inc. Exemption from Liability—Exculpatory Contracts— Corporation as Distinct Entity—Corporate Actions through Agents—Vicarious Liability.
The Supreme Court addressed whether a homeowners association may benefit from exculpatory clauses in the community’s declaration and bylaws when those clauses do not name the association as a protected party. Because the plain language of the exculpatory clauses at issue in this case does not limit the association’s liability, and the association, as an entity distinct from internal boards acting as its agents, cannot benefit from exculpatory clauses protecting those agents, the Court concluded that petitioners may bring their claims against the association.
Accordingly, the Court of Appeals’ decision was reversed and the case was remanded.
May 15, 2017
2017 CO 39. No. 16SC366. Foster v. Plock. Claim Preclusion—Issue Preclusion—Mutuality.
In this case, the Supreme Court considered whether mutuality is a necessary element of defensive claim preclusion. Although multiple divisions of the Court of Appeals have concluded that mutuality need not be established for the defensive use of claim preclusion, the Court disagrees. Instead, the Court concluded that mutuality is a necessary element of defensive claim preclusion. The Court also concluded that mutuality existed in this case, as did the remaining elements of claim preclusion, and therefore affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals on other grounds.
2017 CO 40. No. 12SC832. Montoya v. People. Extreme Indifference Murder—Self-Defense—Accessory to Crime—Invited Error.
Montoya petitioned for review of the Court of Appeals’ judgment affirming his convictions for attempted extreme indifference murder, reckless manslaughter, criminally negligent homicide, and accessory to crime. See People v. Montoya, No. 06CA1875 (Colo.App. Sept. 13, 2012). Montoya and his cousin were tried together for the shooting death of a woman at a party, in the course of which they each fired a number of rounds in the direction of other partygoers. In a separate appeal to the Court of Appeals, Montoya’s homicide convictions were initially reversed for failure to properly instruct concerning self-defense against multiple assailants, but upon remand for reconsideration in light of intervening Supreme Court jurisprudence, all of his convictions were affirmed, not only with regard to the disputed issue of multiple assailants but against a variety of other assignments of error as well. Montoya’s subsequent petition for a writ of certiorari was partially granted by this Court.
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that (1) there was sufficient evidence to support Montoya’s conviction of attempted extreme indifference murder; (2) Montoya was barred from challenging on appeal the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction for being an accessory to crime, a lesser non-included offense presented to the jury at his request; and (3) Montoya’s simultaneous convictions of reckless manslaughter and accessory to crime neither merged nor required concurrent sentences.
2017 CO 41. No. 15SC226. Colorado Department of Revenue v. Creager Mercantile Co., Inc. Statutory Construction—Tobacco taxation.
The Supreme Court granted certiorari review to determine whether Blunt Wraps, a type of cigar wrapper made in part of tobacco and designed to be filled with smoking material and...
To continue reading
Request your trial