The Colorado Supreme Court announced on Monday that it will review the impact of a victim’s closed-circuit testimony on the prosecution of a juvenile defendant.

At least three of the court’s seven members must agree to hear an appeal. There is currently one vacancy, which will be filled next month.

The justices also signaled they may intervene in an eminent domain case out of Douglas County, where a trial judge declined to allow discovery before deciding who should possess the disputed land.

CCTV TESTIMONY

A teenager, identified as A.T.S., stood trial for sexually assaulting his younger relative. Prosecutors sought to allow the victim to testify by closed-circuit television because of the “serious emotional distress” he would suffer from being in the same room as his family. The victim’s therapist submitted a statement that, in her opinion, the trauma would likely affect the victim’s ability to communicate.

Denver Juvenile Court Judge Laurie A. Clark allowed for the CCTV testimony. She noted, however, that she was “much less worried” about the presence of A.T.S. Instead, she believed any serious emotional distress or inability to communicate would come from the “influence” of A.T.S.’s parents.

Following his conviction for sexual assault, A.T.S. argued the use of CCTV violated his constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him. A three-judge Court of Appeals panel agreed, noting the right to confrontation gives way if a child witness would be traumatized by the defendant’s presence, not the presence of other parties.

Although the prosecution’s case was “not overwhelming,” wrote Judge David H. Yun, the panel concluded the CCTV testimony did not affect the outcome because of the relatively brief duration, the use of videotaped statements the victim made to a forensic interviewer and the fact that defense counsel cross-examined the victim.

The Supreme Court will now consider whether the appellate panel correctly concluded the remote testimony did not contribute to the guilty verdict, and whether it failed to completely disregard the testimony in deciding to uphold A.T.S.’s conviction.

The case is People in the Interest of A.T.S.

EMINENT DOMAIN

The principle of eminent domain empowers governments to take possession of private property for public use, so long as they provide proper compensation. There are two phases to such proceedings in Colorado: a ruling on the governmental entity’s ability to possess the property and a trial to determine the compensation amount.

Last year, the Arrowhead Colorado Metropolitan District filed a petition to condemn property owned by the Roxborough Park Foundation, which controls and maintains common areas within Roxborough Park. A private company that owns a 35-acre parcel formed the metropolitan district to create infrastructure for a proposed “Nordic spa.”

The foundation quickly sought to obtain evidence before the decision on possession of the land. The request encompassed design documents, studies, and communications between the metropolitan district and the private company.

In December, District Court Judge Ben Leutwyler blocked the request for evidence. He concluded the rules governing civil cases “make no provision for discovery in a condemnation action prior to the immediate possession hearing or otherwise.”

The Roxborough Park Foundation turned to the Supreme Court. Without the justices’ intervention, the foundation argued, the metropolitan district could take possession of the property and alter it immediately, and the foundation could only appeal that decision after the eventual trial for compensation. Moreover, no prior court case has addressed whether a landowner has the right to the discovery of evidence before a possession decision.

“Without discovery, the Foundation must rely solely on information the District has chosen to make public, and evidence it might cobble together from sources like third-party subpoenas and open records requests,” wrote the foundation’s lawyers. “The court’s denial of all discovery effectively precludes the Foundation from exercising its constitutional and statutory right to challenge the attempted condemnation.”

The Supreme Court directed the Arrowhead Colorado Metropolitan District to explain why it should not reverse Leutwyler’s order.

The case is Arrowhead Colorado Metropolitan District v. Roxborough Park Foundation et al.