SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO€¦ · Web viewWhether 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

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.

______________________________________________________________________________


10:00 a.m.

EN BANC

06SC491 (1/2 HOUR)

Petitioner:

JOSE PENA,

v.

Respondent:


)))))))))))))

For the Petitioner:

Douglas K. Wilson


Kathleen A. Lord


For the Respondent:

John W. Suthers

Attorney General

Laurie A. Booras

First Assistant Attorney General

Appellate Division



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.

______________________________________________________________________________


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


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


Docketed: October 20, 2006


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.

______________________________________________________________________________


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


Labor and Personnel Unit

State Services Section

For Amicus Curiae WCEA:

William J. Macdonald


Docketed: January 25, 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.

______________________________________________________________________________


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


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.

______________________________________________________________________________


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


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.

______________________________________________________________________________


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


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.

______________________________________________________________________________



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


Docketed: November 22, 2006


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).

______________________________________________________________________________


2:30 p.m.

EN BANC

06SC454 (1/2 HOUR)

Petitioner:


v.

Respondent:

JOHN RICHARD RICKMAN.

))))))))))))

For the Petitioner:

John W. Suthers

Attorney General

Roger G. Billotte


Appellate Division


For the Respondent:

Curtis V. Smith

Stephen C. Cook

Smith & Cook, LLC


Docketed: July 25, 2006


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.

______________________________________________________________________________


Oral Argument: Thursday, September 13, 2007

EN BANC

Bailiff: Pax Moultrie

06SC705 (1/2 HOUR)

Petitioner:


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.




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:


)))))))))))))

For the Petitioner:

Douglas K. Wilson


Rebecca R. Freyre


For the Respondent:

John W. Suthers

Attorney General

Patricia R. Van Horn


Appellate Division



Docketed: February 23, 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.”

______________________________________________________________________________



EN BANC

Bailiff: Daniela Ronchetti

06SC586 (1/2 HOUR)

Petitioner:

WILLIAM ROMERO,

v.

Respondent:


)))))))))))))

For the Petitioner:

Douglas K. Wilson


Elizabeth Griffin


For the Respondent:

Rodney D. Fouracre

16th Judicial District Attorney

James S. Whitmire


Pamela S. Mucklow





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.

______________________________________________________________________________


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?


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

Documents

SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO€¦ · Web viewWhether 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