justice carlos samour
-
Colorado Supreme Court holds municipal sentences may not be greater for identical state crimes
—
by
The Colorado Supreme Court ruled on Monday that municipalities may not subject defendants to sentences that are harsher under their own ordinances than for identical offenses under state law. In the Dec. 22 opinion, Chief Justice Monica M. Márquez noted localities are free to prosecute defendants in municipal court for crimes that could also be…
-
Divided appeals court nullifies defendant’s $37,000 restitution obligation due to faulty order
—
by
Colorado’s second-highest court concluded on Thursday that a defendant has no obligation to pay nearly $37,000 in crime victim restitution due to a faulty order that even the trial judge acknowledged was contrary to the law. In Colorado, as part of sentencing, judges must consider whether defendants owe financial restitution to their victims. If so,…
-
Justices debate what to do when governments withhold key info from plaintiffs
—
by
Members of the Colorado Supreme Court seemed to be on different pages when they considered on Tuesday whether a woman injured by a sidewalk defect in Manitou Springs was forever barred from suing the actual entity responsible because she did not learn until it was too late that Colorado Springs was the proper defendant. The…
-
Colorado justices splinter over approach to sentencing review
—
by
Members of the Colorado Supreme Court were divided on Monday about whether vehicular homicide stemming from intoxicated driving is “grave and serious” in every possible scenario, with two justices suggesting the court reconfigure its approach for determining the proportionality of criminal sentences. The Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment means sentences cannot be…
-
Colorado justices lay down framework for analyzing defamation lawsuits involving ‘public interest’ issues
—
by
The Colorado Supreme Court clarified on Monday how judges should evaluate whether lawsuits arising from a person’s speech — in particular, online consumer reviews — are connected to an “issue of public interest” and merit protection from legal liability. As part of the framework, the justices concluded a person’s motive in speaking is irrelevant to…
-
Appeals court wipes away defendant’s $66,000 restitution obligation after trial judge did not follow law
—
by
Colorado’s second-highest court voided a defendant’s obligation to pay more than $66,000 in crime victim restitution last week, finding a Mesa County judge neglected to follow the process laid out in state law. In Colorado, as part of sentencing, judges must consider whether defendants owe financial restitution to their victims. If so, prosecutors generally need to…
-
Colorado Supreme Court to examine whether corporations can be liable for ‘felonious killing’
—
by
The Colorado Supreme Court recently announced that it will determine whether corporations can be liable for a “felonious killing,” meaning there is no limit to the damages they might pay for pain and suffering after causing a wrongful death. At least three of the court’s seven members must agree to take a case on appeal.…
-
Colorado justices ponder ‘gotcha’ for defendant after messy process impacted mental health evidence
—
by
Some members of the Colorado Supreme Court were uncomfortable last week with letting a defendant’s murder conviction stand after a series of missteps resulted in a trial judge blocking jurors from hearing an expert’s assessment of the defendant’s mental health. Although the details were complicated, the legal issue was more streamlined: State law requires defendants…
-
Colorado justices consider whether to restore $5.7 million award to RTD subcontractor
—
by
Members of the Colorado Supreme Court considered last week whether the Court of Appeals incorrectly threw out a $5.7 million award to a company that helped build a commuter rail line and, in doing so, deterred public works contractors from seeking to recover money they are owed through the process envisioned in state law. Ralph…
-
Colorado justices receptive to allowing lawyers to ‘borrow’ allegations from elsewhere
—
by
Members of the Colorado Supreme Court seemed open on Tuesday to the idea that plaintiffs’ lawyers can use allegations made elsewhere to bolster their own clients’ claims, so long as the attorney first performs some degree of investigation into the “borrowed” assertions. Under Colorado’s rules for civil cases, attorneys must attest that the complaints they…
