supreme court, state of colorado€¦ · web viewwhether the court of appeals erred in...
TRANSCRIPT
SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO
SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO 9:00 a.m.
Oral Argument: Tuesday, September 11, 2007
EN BANC
Bailiff: Farrell Carfield
07SC50 (1 HOUR)
Petitioner:
JIMMY J. VASQUEZ,
v.
Respondent:
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO.
)))))))))))))
For the Petitioner:
Douglas K. Wilson
Colorado State Public Defender
Todd E. Mair
Deputy State Public Defender
For the Respondent:
John W. Suthers
Attorney General
Laurie A. Booras
First Assistant Attorney General
Appellate Division
Criminal Justice Section
Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 04CA0729
Docketed: January 16, 2007
At Issue: July 16, 2007
ISSUE(S):
Whether the “forfeiture by wrongdoing” doctrine applies, eliminating a defendant’s constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him, in the absence of any facts indicating that the defendant’s purpose was to silence the witness.
Whether a defendant who loses his confrontation rights under the “forfeiture by wrongdoing” doctrine also loses his due process right to a fair trial based on reliable evidence admitted in accordance with the rules of evidence.
______________________________________________________________________________
Oral Argument: Tuesday, September 11, 2007
10:00 a.m.
EN BANC
06SC491 (1/2 HOUR)
Petitioner:
JOSE PENA,
v.
Respondent:
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO.
)))))))))))))
For the Petitioner:
Douglas K. Wilson
Colorado State Public Defender
Kathleen A. Lord
Deputy State Public Defender
For the Respondent:
John W. Suthers
Attorney General
Laurie A. Booras
First Assistant Attorney General
Appellate Division
Criminal Justice Section
Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 03CA0892
Docketed: August 29, 2006
At Issue: May 29, 2007
ISSUE(S):
Whether the forfeiture by wrongdoing doctrine should be adopted in Colorado and, if so, whether application of the doctrine requires proof of defendant’s intent to prevent the declarant from testifying at trial.
Whether, assuming arguendo that a defendant may be barred from raising a Confrontation Clause claim, the court of appeals erred in refusing to consider whether the challenged hearsay was admissible under the Rules of Evidence.
______________________________________________________________________________
Oral Argument: Tuesday, September 11, 2007
10:30 a.m.
EN BANC
06SC809 (1/2 HOUR)
Petitioner:
NANCY GALLION,
v.
Respondent:
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MOTOR VEHICLE DIVISION.
))))))))))))
For the Petitioner:
Kristopher L. Hammond
Hammond Law Offices
For the Respondent:
John W. Suthers
Attorney General
Ceri Williams
Assistant Attorney General
Business and Licensing Section
Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 05CA1054
Docketed: December 11, 2006
At Issue: June 18, 2007
ISSUE(S):
Whether the court of appeals erred by holding that Petitioner could not validly recant her refusal to take a chemical blood alcohol test even though she consented to a chemical test within two hours of driving as required by section 42-4-1301.1(2)(a)(III), C.R.S. (2006), but the arresting officer was no longer available and had returned to patrol.
______________________________________________________________________________
SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO 1:30 p.m.
Oral Argument: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 EN BANC
Bailiff: Richard Murray
06SC698 (1/2 HOUR)
Petitioner:
CLANCY SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
v.
Respondent:
FRANCIS R. SALAZAR.
))))))))))
For the Petitioner:
Dana L. Eismeier
Rachel T. Rowley
Burns, Figa & Will, P.C.
For the Respondent:
David Sean Carroll
Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 04CA2347
Docketed: October 20, 2006
At Issue: June 18, 2007
ISSUE(S):
Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that the Uniform Commercial Code, specifically C.R.S. section 4-8-401, does not preempt common law claims or remedies relating to the registration of a transfer of stock, including the issuance of a stock certificate.
______________________________________________________________________________
Oral Argument: Tuesday, September 11, 2007
2:00 p.m.
EN BANC
07SC73 (1/2 HOUR)
Petitioner:
EVA SIGALA,
v.
Respondents:
INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS OFFICE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO, ATENCIO’S MARKET, and ROYAL & SUNALLIANCE.
)))))))))))))))))
)))))
For the Petitioner:
Lawrence D. Saunders
Koncilja & Koncilja, P.C.
For the Respondents Atencio’s Market, and Royal & SunAlliance:
Gregory K. Chambers
C. Sandra Pyun
Dworkin, Chambers, Williams, York, Benson & Evans, P.C.
For the Respondent Industrial Claim Appeals Office:
John W. Suthers
Attorney General
Laurie Rottersman
Assistant Attorney General
Labor and Personnel Unit
State Services Section
For Amicus Curiae WCEA:
William J. Macdonald
Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 05CA1597
Docketed: January 25, 2007
At Issue: June 21, 2007
ISSUE(S):
Whether the court of appeals erred in interpreting the word "suspend" in section 8-42-105 (2)(c), C.R.S. as allowing for the permanent denial of wage-loss benefits.
______________________________________________________________________________
SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO 9:00 a.m.
Oral Argument: Wednesday, September 12, 2007
EN BANC
Bailiff: Jared Butcher
06SC559 (1 HOUR)
Petitioners:
COLORADO EDUCATION ASSOCIATION and POUDRE EDUCATION ASSOCIATION,
v.
Respondents:
WAYNE RUTT and PAUL MARRICK.
))))))))))))
For the Petitioners:
Mark G. Grueskin
Blain D. Myhre
Daniel C. Stiles
Isaacson Rosenbaum, P.C.
For the Respondents:
Scott E. Gessler
Hugh C. Thatcher
Hackstaff Gessler, LLC
Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 05CA1718
Docketed: September 5, 2006
At Issue: May 22, 2007
ISSUE(S):
Whether the court of appeals erroneously interpreted the term "coordinated with" as used in Colorado Constitution Article XXVIII, sections 2(9) and 5(3), in deciding a question of first impression.
Whether the court of appeals erred in concluding that the Petitioners coordinated their campaign activities with a candidate, under Article XXVIII, sections 2(9) and 5(3) and, therefore, that Petitioners violated the prohibition on labor organizations making contributions to candidate committees (Colorado Constitution Article XXVIII, section 3(4)(a)).
Whether the court of appeals erred in failing to address the application of the "membership exception," where the ALJ concluded that most of the Petitioners' communications were not made to non-members.
______________________________________________________________________________
Oral Argument: Wednesday, September 12, 2007
10:00 a.m.
EN BANC
06SC757 (1/2 HOUR)
Petitioner:
JOHN HOLCOMB,
v.
Respondent:
JAN-PRO CLEANING SYSTEMS OF SOUTHERN COLORADO.
))))))))))
For the Petitioner:
Lisa W. Stevens
and
Max G. Margulis
For the Respondent:
Mark A. Larson
Kevin D. Allen
Allen & Vellone, P.C.
Certiorari to the District Court, El Paso County, 06CV1687
Docketed: November 27, 2006
At Issue: June 8, 2007
ISSUE(S):
Whether the district court erred by adding a use test to the Colorado No-Call laws by concluding that Petitioner removed his residential subscriber home telephone number from No-Call protection because Petitioner uses his residential subscriber home telephone for personal and office use, when the legislature passed the No-Call Act to protect the statutorily defined classification of residential subscriber with use of a home telephone being irrelevant.
______________________________________________________________________________
Oral Argument: Wednesday, September 12, 2007
10:30 a.m.
EN BANC
06SA146 (1 HOUR)
In the Matter of :
SUSAN G. HAINES.
))))))))))
For the Attorney-Respondent/Appellant:
Eric B. Liebman
Moye White, LLP
For the Complainant-Appellee:
John S. Gleason
Attorney Regulation Counsel
Kim Ikeler
Assistant Regulation Counsel
Original Proceeding in Discipline, Appeal from the Hearing Board, 04PDJ112
Docketed April 25, 2006
At Issue: June 26, 2007
ISSUE(S):
Whether the Hearing Panel erred by failing to properly apply the OARC’s burden to prove its case by clear and convincing evidence.
Whether the Hearing Panel erred by failing to consider the misleading information provided to Mr. Erpelding by his attorney (and Ms. Haines’ co-counsel) Mr. Mihm.
Whether the Hearing Panel erred by admitting into evidence, over the objection of counsel for Ms. Haines, the videotape of John Erpelding- which was taken without Ms. Haines’ counsel present- and by viewing the videotape prior to the hearing and outside the presence of counsel.
Whether the Hearing Panel erred in failing to consider testimony of Ms. Haines’ expert witnesses.
Whether the Hearing Panel confused the issues of to whom Ms. Haines owed duties and what duties are owed.
______________________________________________________________________________
SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO 1:30 p.m.
Oral Argument: Wednesday, September 12, 2007
EN BANC
Bailiff: Caleb Durling
06SC780 (1 HOUR)
IN THE MATTER OF J.C.T., a minor child,
Petitioners:
Paula Constantakis Young, Guardian Ad Litem, and Three Affiliated Tribes
v.
Respondent:
C.A.H.
))))))))))))))
)))
For J.C.T.:
Paula Constantakis Young
For the Petitioner Three Affiliated Tribes:
Jill E. Tompkins
Director
Ann M. Rhodes
Student Attorney
American Indian Law Clinic
University of Colorado School of Law
For the Respondent:
Richard L. Gabriel
Timothy M. Reynolds
David A. Tonini
Holme Roberts & Owen, LLP
Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 05CA1065
Docketed: November 22, 2006
At Issue: June 29, 2007
ISSUE(S):
Whether the court of appeals erred by holding that a probate court exceeded its jurisdiction in directing a guardian ad litem to find a permanent guardian for a ward and considering the potential for an eventual adoption in its evaluation of the best interests of the ward.
Whether the court of appeals erred when it held that the appointment of the guardian ad litem as temporary guardian divested the probate court of jurisdiction and vested jurisdiction with the juvenile court under section 19-3-102, C.R.S. (2006).
______________________________________________________________________________
Oral Argument: Wednesday, September 12, 2007
2:30 p.m.
EN BANC
06SC454 (1/2 HOUR)
Petitioner:
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO.
v.
Respondent:
JOHN RICHARD RICKMAN.
))))))))))))
For the Petitioner:
John W. Suthers
Attorney General
Roger G. Billotte
Assistant Attorney General
Appellate Division
Criminal Justice Section
For the Respondent:
Curtis V. Smith
Stephen C. Cook
Smith & Cook, LLC
Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 04CA0501
Docketed: July 25, 2006
At Issue: July 23, 2007
ISSUE(S):
Whether the court of appeals erred in reversing the defendant’s convictions on two counts of violation of bond when it concluded that pretrial services acted ultra vires and without statutory authority in imposing those bond conditions.
______________________________________________________________________________
SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO 9:00 a.m.
Oral Argument: Thursday, September 13, 2007
EN BANC
Bailiff: Pax Moultrie
06SC705 (1/2 HOUR)
Petitioner:
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO.
v.
Respondent:
JAMES MACLEOD.
))))))))))))
For the Petitioner:
Carol Chambers
18th Judicial District Attorney
Paul R. Wolff
Chief Deputy District Attorney
Bryan Garrett
Deputy District Attorney
For the Respondent:
Harvey A. Steinberg
Michael P. Zwiebel
Springer & Steinberg, P.C.
Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 05CA1586
Docketed: October 23, 2006
At Issue: June 25, 2007
ISSUE(S):
Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that defendant’s failure to follow the procedures outlined in the Rape Shield statute did not prevent his cross-examination of a witness regarding her past history of being a victim of child sexual abuse.
______________________________________________________________________________
Oral Argument: Thursday, September 13, 2007 9:30 a.m.
EN BANC
07SC133 (1/2 HOUR)
Petitioner:
ALFREDO HERNANDEZ, JR.,
v.
Respondent:
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO.
)))))))))))))
For the Petitioner:
Douglas K. Wilson
Colorado State Public Defender
Rebecca R. Freyre
Deputy State Public Defender
For the Respondent:
John W. Suthers
Attorney General
Patricia R. Van Horn
Assistant Attorney General
Appellate Division
Criminal Justice Section
Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 05CA1048
Docketed: February 23, 2007
At Issue: July 10, 2007
ISSUE(S):
Whether section 16-11.7-105(1), C.R.S. (2006) mandates sex offender treatment as a condition of probation in all cases or whether a sentencing court has discretion to order treatment “to the extent appropriate to such offender.”
______________________________________________________________________________
SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO 1:30 p.m.
Oral Argument: Thursday, September 13, 2007
EN BANC
Bailiff: Daniela Ronchetti
06SC586 (1/2 HOUR)
Petitioner:
WILLIAM ROMERO,
v.
Respondent:
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO.
)))))))))))))
For the Petitioner:
Douglas K. Wilson
Colorado State Public Defender
Elizabeth Griffin
Deputy State Public Defender
For the Respondent:
Rodney D. Fouracre
16th Judicial District Attorney
James S. Whitmire
Deputy District Attorney
Pamela S. Mucklow
Deputy District Attorney
Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 05CA0961
Docketed: October 11, 2006
At Issue: July 9, 2007
ISSUE(S):
Whether the court of appeals erred in ruling that the imposition of a longer community corrections term upon revocation of the original term violates neither double jeopardy nor section 18-1.3-301(1)(e), C.R.S., so long as the defendant is afforded a hearing.
______________________________________________________________________________
Oral Argument: Thursday, September 13, 2007
2:00 p.m.
EN BANC
07SA113 (1/2 HOUR)
In re:
Plaintiff:
LESLIE LANAHAN, individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Lynn Gordon Bailey, Jr.
v.
Defendants:
CHI PSI FRATERNITY, ALPHA PSI DELTA CORPORATION OF CHI PSI, individually and as a chapter and agent of Chi Psi Fraternity, PATRICK STEPHENSON WALL, NICHOLAS AARON ABRAHAMSEN, FRANK WILLIAMSON DARDEN, BRETT JAMISON HERTER, CHRISTOPHER NELSON JONES, MICHAEL BURNS RYAN, and ALAN JOSEPH WILLIAMS.
))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
For the Plaintiff:
A. Bruce Jones
Stephen G. Masciocchi
Holland & Hart, LLP
For the Defendant Patrick Stephenson Wall:
Sheryl L. Anderson
David G. Mayhan
L. Michael Brooks, Jr.
William T. O’Connell, IIIWells, Anderson & Race, LLC
For the Defendant Christopher Nelson Jones:
Brett Godfrey
Ryan E. Warren
Godfrey & Lapuyade, P.C.
For the Defendant Michael Burns Ryan:
Bradley D. Tucker
Kristin A. Brenner
Walberg, Tucker & Holmes, P.C.
For Defendant Brett Jamison Herter:
Peter S. Dusbabek
Peter J. Dauster
Montgomery, Kolodny, Amatuzio & Dusbabek
For Defendant Alan Joseph Williams:
John P. Craver
White & Steele, P.C.
For Defendants CHI PSI Fraternity & ALPHA PSI DELTA Corporation of CHI PSI:
James E. Goldfarb
Spencer L. Sears
Senter Goldfarb & Rice, LLC
Cont’d on to next page
07SA113
Cont’d from previous page
For Defendant Nicholas Aaron Abrahamsen:
Douglas I. McQuiston
Law Offices of Douglas I. McQuiston
For Defendant Frank Williamson Darden:
Elizabeth C. Moran
Aaron P. Bradford
Pryor Johnson Carney Karr Nixon, P.C.
For Amicus Curiae the Colorado Defense Lawyers Association:
C. Todd Drake
Amy E. Cook-Olson
Montgomery Little Soran & Murray, P.C.
Original Proceeding, District Court, Boulder County, 06CV424
Docketed: April 11, 2007
At Issue: August 3, 2007
ISSUE(S):
Does the cap on noneconomic damages in C.R.S. § 13-21-203(1)(a) apply on a “per-claim” or “per-defendant” basis?
SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO 3:30 p.m.
Public Hearing: Thursday, September 13, 2007
EN BANC
Bailiff: Susan Festag
Proposed Amendment to
Chapter 33
The Colorado Rules of Evidence
Rule 404. Character Evidence Not Admissible to
Prove Conduct, Exception; Other Crimes
Rule 408. Compromise and Offers to Compromise
and
Rule 606. Competency of Juror as Witness
1
16