Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Because the police suspected Rafael Tafoya of drug trafficking, they mounted a camera on a utility pole across the street from his house without first securing a warrant. For approximately three months, the pole camera continuously recorded footage of Tafoya’s property, which included the backyard, which was otherwise hidden by a six-foot-high privacy fence. The camera could pan, tilt and zoom: all features that police could control while viewing the footage live. Police also indefinitely stored the footage for later review. Based on activity they observed from the footage, police obtained a warrant to search Tafoya’s property. During the subsequent search pursuant to the warrant, the police found large amounts of methamphetamine and cocaine. The State charged Tafoya with two counts of possession with intent to distribute and two counts of conspiracy. Before trial, Tafoya moved to suppress all evidence obtained as a result of the pole camera surveillance, including the evidence seized pursuant to the search warrant, arguing that police use of the camera violated the Fourth Amendment. The trial court denied his motion and found that police use of the camera was not a “search” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Tafoya was subsequently convicted on all counts. A division of the court of appeals reversed, finding that police use of the pole camera under the facts of this case was a warrantless search. The State appealed, and the Colorado Supreme Court granted certiorari review. The Supreme Court held that police use of the pole camera to continuously video surveil Tafoya’s fenced-in curtilage for three months, with the footage stored indefinitely for later review, constituted a warrantless search in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Accordingly, it affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals. View "Colorado v. Tafoya" on Justia Law

The State challenged the court of appeals decision reversing defendant Gabriel Sanchez’s convictions for two counts of possession. Specifically, the State argued that police use of a pole camera to surveil Rafael Tafoya’s property - which Sanchez routinely visited - did not violate Sanchez’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches. Before trial, Sanchez moved to suppress all evidence obtained as a result of the pole camera surveillance, including the evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant based on activity police observed from the camera’s footage. The trial court found that, while Sanchez had standing to move to suppress, the use of the camera did not constitute a “search” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. The court of appeals reversed, agreeing that Sanchez had standing, and held that the use of the camera constituted a warrantless search. The Colorado Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether the use of the camera constituted a warrantless search in violation of the Fourth Amendment. In this and a companion opinion, Colorado v. Tafoya, 2021 CO __, __ P.3d __, the Court held police use of the pole camera constituted a warrantless search in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals. View "Colorado v. Sanchez" on Justia Law

Marquis McDonald was convicted by jury of violating the Colorado Organized Crime Control Act ("COCCA"), a class 2 felony for which McDonald ultimately received a ninety-six year sentence in prison. In challenging his conviction, McDonald has focused on COCCA’s requirement that a defendant participate in an “enterprise.” He asserted no enterprise existed: the main evidence presented against him was the theft of a van and a smash-and-grab at a jewelry store. According to McDonald, a division of the court of appeals erred when it declined to interpret "enterprise" as the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the same phrase in the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”). McDonald claimed that an associated-in-fact enterprise under COCCA had to have the structural features that the Supreme Court deemed necessary under RICO. To this, the Colorado Supreme Court agreed, and therefore reversed the judgment of the appellate division. The Supreme Court held that COCCA required an associated-in-fact enterprise to have: (1) a minimum amount of structure - namely, a purpose, relationships among those associated with the enterprise, and longevity sufficient to permit the associates to pursue the enterprise’s purpose; and (2) an ongoing organization of associates, functioning as a continuing unit, that existed separate and apart from the pattern of racketeering activity in which it engaged. View "McDonald v. Colorado" on Justia Law

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Colorado Supreme Court approved the addition of paragraph (c)(4) to Crim. P. 24 (“Trial Jurors”) to permit a trial court, either upon motion of a party or on its own motion, to declare a mistrial at any time before trial on the ground that a fair jury pool cannot be safely assembled as a result of a public health crisis or limitations brought about by such crisis. The issue this case presented for the Court's review centered on how to calculate the new speedy trial deadline following a mistrial (including one declared under Rule 24(c)(4)). The Court held that a mistrial triggered a tolling, not an extension, of the speedy trial period. Further, the Court held that when a trial court declares a mistrial, section 18-1-405(6)(e) required only reasonable delays attributable to the mistrial, not to exceed three months, to be excluded from the computation of time within which a defendant must be brought to trial. In this case, the trial court believed that its March 1, 2021 mistrial declaration pursuant to Rule 24(c)(4) automatically extended the six-month statutory speedy trial period by three months from the date of the mistrial, presumably until June 1. The Supreme Court held this was error. The mistrial merely tolled the six-month speedy trial period for up to three months from the mistrial date. And, because the delay between the date of the mistrial (March 1) and the new trial date (April 26) was reasonable, attributable to the mistrial, and not in excess of three months, it had to be excluded in its entirety from the speedy trial period. View "In re Colorado v. Sherwood" on Justia Law

T.B. committed two sexual offenses as a minor: the first when he was eleven years old and the second when he was fifteen. Because he was twice adjudicated delinquent for unlawful sexual behavior, the Colorado Sex Offender Registration Act (“CSORA”), required T.B. to register as a sex offender for the remainder of his natural life. Now an adult, T.B. sought review of the juvenile court’s denial of his petition to deregister, arguing that CSORA’s mandatory lifetime sex offender registration requirement for offenders with multiple juvenile adjudications violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. To this, the Colorado Supreme Court agreed: "Mandatory lifetime sex offender registration brands juveniles as irredeemably depraved based on acts committed before reaching adulthood. But a wealth of social science and jurisprudence confirms what common sense suggests: Juveniles are different. Minors have a tremendous capacity to change and reform. As such, mandating lifetime sex offender registration for juveniles without providing a mechanism for individualized assessment or an opportunity to deregister upon a showing of rehabilitation is excessive and violates the Eighth Amendment." The matter was remanded for further proceedings on T.B.'s petition to deregister. View "Colorado in Int. of T.B." on Justia Law

Respondent Karl Baker and his business partner sought investors for a company called Aviara Capital Partners, LLC. According to promotional materials that Baker provided to potential investors, investment money would be used to purchase distressed banks that were being shut down and were under the control of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”). In conjunction with the purchase of the distressed banks, Aviara would operate a “distressed assets fund” to purchase the assets of such banks. Aviara would then acquire additional banks under a business plan by which Aviara and its investors would collectively own eighty percent of the banks, while bank management, directors, advisors, and employees would own the other twenty percent. In the course of soliciting potential investors, Baker spoke, independently, with the purported victims in this case, Donna and Lyal Taylor, Dr. Alan Ng, and Stanley Douglas. The alleged victims’ investments did not work out as they claim to have been promised, and a grand jury subsequently indicted Baker on, among other charges, four counts of securities fraud, and three counts of theft. The issue this case presented for the Colorado Supreme Court’s review centered on whether the admission of a deputy securities commissioner’s expert testimony that Baker’s misstatements and omissions were material was reversible error. Because: (1) in presenting such opinions, the deputy commissioner also opined that certain disputed facts were true; (2) such testimony involved weighing the evidence and making credibility determinations, which were matters solely within the jury’s province; and (3) the error in admitting such testimony was not harmless, the Supreme Court agreed with the court of appeals that the admission of this testimony was reversible error. View "Colorado v. Baker" on Justia Law

Shaun Lawrence met D.B. at a casino, where she worked as a cashier. During their conversations, Lawrence told D.B. that he ran several successful businesses and that he was looking for people to work for him and for investors to help grow a private investigations business called Advert Investigations (“Advert”). The parties eventually signed two “Investment and Business Agreement,” which provided that D.B. would invest cash money in exchange for an ownership interest in Advert. At no time prior to D.B.’s investments did Lawrence tell her that he would use the money to pay for personal and gambling expenses. Nor did he ever advise her that he had outstanding civil judgments against him totaling over $100,000. D.B. filed a complaint with the State Division of Securities, which subsequently referred the case to the district attorney’s office for prosecution. The State then charged Lawrence with two counts of securities fraud, and one count of theft. The jury ultimately convicted Lawrence as charged, and Lawrence appealed. In his appeal, he contended, among other things, that (1) the evidence did not establish that the transaction at issue involved a security (namely, an investment contract); (2) Colorado Securities Commissioner Rome’s expert testimony usurped the jury’s role as factfinder because the Commissioner was improperly permitted to opine on the ultimate factual issues in this case; and (3) Lawrence was entitled to the ameliorative benefit of the amendments to the theft statute and, as a result, he could only stand convicted of a class 1 misdemeanor because that was the lowest degree of theft that the jury’s verdict supported. The Colorado Supreme Court concurred with the appellate court’s determination that: (1) the agreement at issue here was an investment contract, and therefore a security; (2) Commissioner’s testimony was admissible, and any error by the trial court in admitting that testimony was harmless; and (3) the trial court erred in instructing the jury as to the value of the property taken. View "Lawrence v. Colorado" on Justia Law

Aundre Moore was charged with first degree murder for the shooting death of Jamaica McClain. Moore pleaded not guilty and was awaiting trial. He claimed he acted in self-defense, and he intended to introduce evidence of his pre-existing mental illness to help show why he subjectively believed he was in imminent danger and needed to use deadly force to repel McClain. The prosecution moved to exclude evidence of Moore’s mental condition, arguing that it was inadmissible unless he plead not guilty by reason of insanity (“NGRI”), an affirmative defense that Moore has said he doesn’t plan to invoke. The district court denied the prosecution’s motion, reasoning that Moore’s stated purpose in offering the mental condition evidence was to prove the subjective belief component of his self-defense claim, not to prove insanity. Therefore, the court ruled that it would allow, without an insanity plea, expert testimony by a psychologist and a forensic psychiatrist who examined Moore, so long as their testimony otherwise conformed to the rules of evidence. The prosecution petitioned for interlocutory review by the Colorado Supreme Court, which then concluded that absent an insanity plea, a trial court must exclude any evidence that is probative of insanity, as that term has been defined by the legislature, irrespective of the ostensible purpose for which it was offered. “This means that evidence of less-severe mental illness remains admissible, absent an insanity plea, if it otherwise conforms to the statutory requirements and the rules of evidence. The court must parse any proffered mental condition evidence, line by line if necessary, to distinguish what is probative of insanity under this exacting definition from what is not.” View "Colorado v. Moore" on Justia Law

Alma Vidauri was convicted of one count of theft and three counts of forgery in connection with filings she made with the Garfield County, Colorado Department of Human Services (“Department”) between 2009 and 2016 for medical assistance benefits. A division of the court of appeals concluded that the evidence was insufficient because the prosecution had not shown the difference in value between the total amount of certain public benefits Vidauri received and the amount for which she might have been eligible had she accurately reported her household income. Therefore, the division reversed the trial court and entered judgment for the lowest level of theft, a class 1 petty offense. The Colorado Supreme Court reversed the division, finding the applicable theft statute placed no burden on the prosecution to establish that Vidauri would have been ineligible for any of the benefits she received. "Because an applicant is not entitled to, and so has no legally cognizable interest in, any benefits until she has submitted accurate information demonstrating as much, we conclude that all the benefits Vidauri received by submitting false information were obtained by deception. Therefore, the original judgment of conviction for a class 4 felony must be reinstated." View "Colorado v. Vidauri" on Justia Law

Delano Medina sought review of the dismissal of his habeas corpus petition by a district court magistrate. Because a district court magistrate was authorized to rule on a habeas corpus petition only when the parties consent to proceeding before the magistrate and Medina did not so consent here, the Colorado Supreme Court concluded the dismissal order was entered without authority. Accordingly, the Court reversed that order, and remanded the case to the district court with instructions to assign the petition to a district court judge for further proceedings. View "Medina v. Williams" on Justia Law