The Colorado Supreme Court announced on Monday it will review whether a juvenile defendant who was tried and convicted of murder as an adult was entitled to have the case dismissed because the government allegedly engaged in selective, race-based prosecution.

At least three of the court’s seven members must agree to take up a case on appeal.

The justices narrowly turned down a second appeal questioning the viability of a campaign finance complaint that was filed well outside of the statute of limitations in state law.

Varied treatment

Lloyd Chavez IV, a student at Cherokee Trail High School, died in May 2019 after four teenagers attempted to rob him during a meetup to purchase vaping supplies. Demarea Mitchell was the one who fatally shot Chavez, but jurors also convicted Kenneth Alfonso Gallegos of felony murder for his participation in the robbery.

The remaining two defendants cooperated with law enforcement and Arapahoe County prosecutors refiled those sets of charges in juvenile court. The defendants, who were Hispanic or White, subsequently pleaded guilty and only served two years of juvenile incarceration.

Mitchell and Gallegos, who are Black, did not receive similar offers from the prosecution. They are both serving life sentences.

Mitchell originally sought to dismiss the charges on the grounds that prosecutors violated his equal protection rights under the U.S. Constitution. Specifically, the inability to have his case transferred to juvenile court was based on Mitchell’s race.

District Court Judge Ben L. Leutwyler disagreed, noting Mitchell was not in an identical position as the two non-Black defendants.

“There is evidence that supports a finding that Mr. Mitchell is the participant who actually shot and killed Mr. Chavez,” he wrote. “Consideration of that fact alone is sufficient to find that the defendant is not similarly situated to the individuals who drove to the scene but did not otherwise participate in the robbery and murder of Mr. Chavez.”

A three-judge panel of the state’s Court of Appeals agreed with Leutwyler’s reasoning that there was no discriminatory effect from the prosecution’s decision-making. It did not address the second-component of a selective prosecution claim: whether prosecutors had a discriminatory purpose.

Mitchell appealed to the Supreme Court, emphasizing all four defendants were originally charged with felony murder at the outset of the case.

“In other words, even though the sole theory of prosecution was that each participant in the robbery had demonstrated equal intent to commit the robbery and the resultant murder, only the two Black codefendants deserved the harsher penalties of adult district court proceedings,” wrote attorney Patrick R. Henson.

The Supreme Court will review that argument. Later this month, the justices will hear arguments in a separate appeal involving Gallegos’ convictions.

The case is Mitchell v. People.

Statute of limitations

The court also fell one vote short of accepting a second case. Suzanne Taheri was the unsuccessful Republican nominee in 2020 for the seat now held by Sen. Chris Kolker, D-Littleton. After Taheri declared her candidacy in 2019, she submitted her federal tax return. In May 2020, a complainant who consulted with a representative of the progressive advocacy group ProgressNow Colorado filed a campaign finance complaint against Taheri based on her disclosure.

The law requires campaign finance complaints to be filed within 180 days of when a person “knew or should have known, by the exercise of reasonable diligence, of the alleged violation.” In Taheri’s case, the complaint came 263 days after her allegedly deficient financial disclosure.

Although Taheri believed she had satisfied Colorado’s campaign finance requirements, an administrative law judge concluded she had not made the correct disclosure. Moreover, he believed the complaint was filed within the legal window. Taheri appealed, but was ordered to pay an $850 fine.

A three-judge panel for the Court of Appeals subsequently upheld the finding that the complainant exercised reasonable diligence in discovering and reporting the violation, despite occurring outside the 180-day window.

The legislature “chose to enact a statute of limitations triggered not by the date of the violation but by the date a citizen reasonably discovered it. That is the legislature’s prerogative,” wrote Judge Elizabeth L. Harris.

Taheri appealed to the Supreme Court, aruging it is unclear what complaints would ever be time-barred under that standard, opening the door to “technical violations” from prior elections being reported years after the fact.

Chief Justice Monica M. Márquez and Justice Carlos A. Samour Jr. indicated they would have heard Taheri’s case.

The case is Taheri v. Beall et al.