Summaries of Published Opinions, 1120 COBJ, Vol. 49, No. 10 Pg. 110
| Position | Vol. 49, 10 [Page 110] |
COLORADO SUPREME COURT
September 14, 2020
2020 CO 70. No. 19SC98. Fisher v. People. Criminal Procedure—Charging Instruments— Amendments to the Information.
In this case, the Supreme Court considered whether an amendment to the information was permissible under Crim. P. 7(e). The amendment expanded the date range of the charged offenses and was made after trial had begun. The Court held that, while expanding the date range does not automatically prejudice a defendant's substantial rights, under the totality of the circumstances here, the mid-trial amendment prejudiced Fisher's substantial right to fully prepare and present his alibi defense. Accordingly, the Courtreversed the Court of Appeals' judgment, vacated Fisher's convictions, and remanded for a new trial.
2020 CO 71. No. 19SC292. Gonzales v. People.
Authentication—Audio Recordings— Evidence. In this case, the Supreme Court considered the appropriate standard for authenticating voice recordings for admission into evidence. The Court held that, in the absence of evidence suggesting that a proffered voice recording has been altered or fabricated, a proponent may authenticate a recording by presenting evidence sufficient to support a finding that it is what the proponent claims. Once this prima facie burden is met, authenticity becomes a question for the factfinder. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' judgment.
2020 CO 72. No. 18SC543. Thompson v. People. Colorado Securities Act—Security— Plain Error—Consecutive Sentencing.
In this case, the Supreme Court first decided whether to adopt the family resemblance test from Reves v. Ernst & Young, 494 U.S. 56,64-67 (1990), as the test for determining whether a note is a security for purposes of the Colorado Securities Act, CRS§§ 11-51-101 to -1008 (CSA). Answering this question in the affirmative, the Court applied the test to the facts before it and concluded that (1) the promissory note at issue was a security for purposes of the CSA; (2) any instructional error regarding the element of a security was not plain because any error was not substantial; and (3) the convictions for securities fraud and theft at issue were not based on identical evidence, and therefore consecutive sentences were permissible. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the judgment...
To continue reading
Request your trial