Summaries of Published Opinions, 0620 COBJ, Vol. 49, No. 6 Pg. 103
| Position | Vol. 49, 6 [Page 103] |
COLORADO SUPREME COURT
April 1, 2020
2020 CO 23. No. 20SA100. In re Interrogatory on House Joint Resolution 20-1006.
Original Jurisdiction—Colo. Const. art. V, § 7—Joint Rules—Length of Regular Session.
The Supreme Court exercised its original jurisdiction to review an interrogatory propounded by the General Assembly asking whether language in article V, § 7 of the Colorado Constitution limiting the length of the regular legislative session to 120 calendar days requires that those days be counted consecutively, or whether the legislature may, during the exceptional circumstance of a public health disaster emergency, count only “working calendar days” toward the 120-day maximum
The Supreme Court concluded that article V, § 7 is ambiguous as to whether the 120 calendar days allotted for a regular legislative session must be counted consecutively. The Court further concluded that the General Assembly reasonably resolved the ambiguity in article V, § 7 through its unanimous adoption of Joint Rules 23(d) and 44(g), which together operate to count the 120 calendar days of a regular session consecutively except during a declared public health emergency disaster, in which case only days on which at least one chamber convenes count toward the 120-day maximum. Because the General Assembly’s interpretation is consistent with the constitutional text and fully comports with the underlying purposes of article V, § 7, the Court concluded that Joint Rules 23(d) and 44(g) are constitutional.
April 13, 2020
2020 CO 24. No. 18SC684. People v. Donald.
Criminal Law—Evidence—Sufficiency of the Evidence.
This case required the Supreme Court to determine (1) what role, if any, the prohibition on inference stacking set out in Tate v. People, 247 P.2d 665 (Colo. 1952), should play in sufficiency of the evidence challenges in criminal cases; and (2) whether sufficient evidence supported defendant’s conviction for violation of bail bond conditions. The Court concluded, contrary to the apparent understanding of the division below, that the presence of stacked inferences is not alone dispositive of a sufficiency of the evidence claim. Rather, it is one factor that a court may consider in determining whether the evidence presented satisfied the prevailing substantial evidence test for evidence sufficiency. The Court further concluded that the prosecution presented sufficient evidence to support defendant’s conviction for violating the bail bond condition prohibiting him from leaving the state...
To continue reading
Request your trial