Summaries of Published Opinions, 1219 COBJ, Vol. 48, No. 11 Pg. 88
| Position | Vol. 48, 11 [Page 88] |
COLORADO SUPREME COURT
October 7, 2019
2019 CO 84. No. 18SA271. People v. Davis.
Criminal Procedure—U.S. Constitution Fifth Amendment—Miranda Warnings—Custody—U.S. Constitution Fourth Amendment— Investigatory Stop.
In this interlocutory appeal, the prosecution challenged the trial court's order suppressing statements defendant made to deputies without being given the proper warnings under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). The Supreme Court reversed, concluding that under the totality of the circumstances, defendant was not in custody for purposes of Miranda because a reasonable person in defendant's position would not have felt deprived of his freedom of action to a degree associated with a formal arrest Further, considering the factors identified in People v. Rodriguez, 945 P.2d 1351, 1362 (Colo. 1997), and People v. Ball, 2017 CO 108, ¶ 9, 407 P.3d 580, 584, the Court concluded that defendant's detention did not escalate to an arrest in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
2019 CO 85. No. 18SC45. Deleon v. People.
Self-incrimination—Testimony—Jury Instructions.
In this case, the Supreme Court concluded that by tendering a jury instruction regarding a defendant's right to remain silent, Deleon preserved the issue for appeal of whether the trial court erred in failing to give any instruction regarding a defendant's right to remain silent. Next, the Court concluded that the trial court failed to provide an effective jury instruction regarding Deleon's right to remain silent, which was an error. Finally, the Court concluded that the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
Accordingly, the Court of Appeals' judgment was reversed.
October 15, 2019
2019 CO 86. No. 18SC225. People v. Rojas. Statutory Interpretation—Plain Language—Theft.
In this opinion, the Supreme Court considered whether an individual who receives food stamp benefits to which she is not legally entitled is properly prosecuted under CRS § 18-4-401 or CRS § 26-2-305(1)(a). The Court held that, based on the plain language of § 26-2-305(1) (a), the legislature did not create a separate crime when it enacted that section. Thus, when an individual violates § 26-2-305(1)(a), he or she may properly be prosecuted under the general theft statute, § 18-4-401. Accordingly, the Court reversed...
To continue reading
Request your trial