Legal Connection Updates http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/?p=37245 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~3/2XJyo6rdx7s/ Updates 6th Judicial District court appointments judge appointments La Plata County Hon. Martha T. Minot to Retire from La Plata County Court On Wednesday, June 21, 2017, the Colorado State Judicial Branch announced the retirement of Hon. Martha T. Minot from the La Plata County Court, effective August 29, 2017. Judge Minot was appointed to the La Plata County Court in March 1995. She presides over a case load that includes traffic offenses, misdemeanors, and civil cases. Prior to her appointment to the bench, Judge Minot was in private practice in Durango, Colorado. Fri, 23 Jun 2017 15:48:19 Z http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2017/06/hon-martha-t-minot-retire-la-plata-county-court/#respond Susan Hoyt <div class="pf-content"><p><a href="http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2017/06/hon-martha-t-minot-retire-la-plata-county-court/minot/" rel="attachment wp-att-37246"><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-37246" src="http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Minot.jpg" alt="" width="200" height="250" srcset="http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Minot.jpg 200w, http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Minot-120x150.jpg 120w" sizes="(max-width: 200px) 100vw, 200px" /></a>On Wednesday, June 21, 2017, the Colorado State Judicial Branch announced the retirement of Hon. Martha T. Minot from the La Plata County Court, effective August 29, 2017. Judge Minot was appointed to the La Plata County Court in March 1995. She presides over a case load that includes traffic offenses, misdemeanors, and civil cases. Prior to her appointment to the bench, Judge Minot was in private practice in Durango, Colorado. She is active in her community; Judge Minot has been the president of the Southwest Colorado Bar Association, the president of the Colorado County Judges Association, is currently a member of the Judicial Discipline Committee and is involved in numerous civic activities in her jurisdiction, including being a hospice volunteer and training advocates for a crisis telephone service.</p> <p>Applications are now being accepted for the upcoming vacancy. Eligible applicants must be qualified electors of La Plata County and must have been admitted to practice law in Colorado. Application forms are available from the State Judicial website or from the <em>ex officio</em> chair of the Sixth Judicial District Nominating Commission, Justice William Hood, III. Application forms must be received no later than 4 p.m. on July 12, 2017. Anyone wishing to nominate another must do so no later than 4 p.m. on July 5, 2017.</p> <p>For more information about the vacancy, <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Careers/Judge_Opportunities/Announcements/JD06%20-%20JMinot%20vacancy%20FINAL.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">click here</a>.</p> </div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~4/2XJyo6rdx7s" height="1" width="1" alt=""/> http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2017/06/hon-martha-t-minot-retire-la-plata-county-court/feed/ 0 http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2017/06/hon-martha-t-minot-retire-la-plata-county-court/ 2017-06-23 15:48 +00:00 2017-06-23 09:48 -06:00 http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/?p=37243 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~3/CRIeS83sPAc/ Case Law Colorado Court of Appeals criminal law cumulative error jury instructions prosecutorial misconduct witness testimony Colorado Court of Appeals: Multiple Errors from Prosecutorial Overreach Did Not Influence Outcome of Trial The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in <em>People v. Howard-Walker</em> on Thursday, June 15, 2017. Fri, 23 Jun 2017 15:38:19 Z http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2017/06/colorado-court-appeals-multiple-errors-prosecutorial-overreach-not-influence-outcome-trial/#respond CBA-CLE Staff <div class="pf-content"><p>The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in <em><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_of_Appeals/Opinion/2017/14CA0562-PD.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">People v. Howard-Walker</a></em> on Thursday, June 15, 2017.</p> <blockquote><p>Batson<em> Challenges—Peremptory Strikes—Jurors—Testimony—Expert Opinion—Lay Witness—Prosecutorial Misconduct—Jury Instructions—Cumulative Error Doctrine.</em></p> <p>Defendant was charged with first degree burglary and conspiracy to commit first degree burglary. Among other evidence presented, his girlfriend and Detective Garcia testified at his trial. He was convicted as charged and sentenced.</p> <p>On appeal, defendant contended that the trial court erred when it denied his challenges, under <em>Batson v. Kentucky</em>, to the prosecutor’s peremptory strikes excusing three prospective jurors—one who identified himself as African-American and two who identified themselves as Hispanic—asserting that the prosecutor’s “race-neutral” reasons for removing the jurors were not worthy of belief. One challenged juror was disinterested, the second juror had a negative experience with law enforcement and a belief that police officers sometimes misidentify suspects, and the third juror had previously faced criminal charges from the same district attorney’s office and had a negative view of law enforcement. Therefore, the trial court’s <em>Batson</em> findings are supported by the record.</p> <p>Defendant next argued that the admission of several portions of Garcia’s testimony constituted reversible error: (1) Garcia was not admitted as an expert witness, but gave opinions regarding whether the gun depicted in the video surveillance was real. Although this was improper, it did not constitute plain error. (2) Garcia testified about the manner in which the gun was being used. Any error in admitting this testimony was harmless. (3) It was not error for Garcia to identify defendant. No specialized knowledge is necessary to recognize an individual in a video and this evidence was probative of a material fact. (4) Garcia testified regarding probable cause, which was not relevant; however, this was not plain error. (5) Garcia testified but had no personal information about the reasons why defendant’s girlfriend was crying during the police interview. This testimony was not obviously improper and did not undermine the fairness of the trial. (6) Garcia opined about defendant’s statement regarding another perpetrator. Even if this was improper, it did not undermine the fundamental fairness of the trial. (7) Garcia opined about the truthfulness of defendant’s statements to police. Though this testimony was improper, it does not rise to the level of plain error because there was other sufficient evidence to support his conviction.</p> <p>Defendant next asserted that the prosecutor engaged in reversible misconduct. Although the prosecutor stepped over the line when he repeatedly suggested that the girlfriend was committing perjury, the prosecutor did not threaten or coerce her, and any misconduct was not reversible. The prosecutor also commented on the girlfriend’s truthfulness. The evidence supported a reasonable inference that her testimony was false, and thus these comments were proper. Finally, although the court did not condone the prosecutor’s comment on defendant’s decision not to testify, the comment did not amount to plain error.</p> <p>Defendant further argued that the trial court erred when it failed to instruct the jury on the predicate crime of theft and when it failed to define the word “intent.” While the jury instructions were deficient, (1) the record demonstrates that the specification of the underlying crime was not a controverted element of the burglary offense; therefore, the court’s failure to instruct the jury on theft was not plain error, and (2) under the circumstances of this case, the court’s failure to define the culpable mental state similarly did not constitute plain error.</p> <p>Finally, defendant argued that the cumulative effect of the trial court’s errors and prosecutorial misconduct violated his right to a fair trial. The errors were relatively small events occurring over a two-day trial during which substantial evidence was presented. Defendant received a fair trial in spite of the identified errors.</p> <p>The judgment was affirmed.</p></blockquote> <p><em>Summary provided courtesy of </em><a href="http://www.cobar.org/-em-The-Colorado-Lawyer-em" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Colorado Lawyer</a>.</p> </div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~4/CRIeS83sPAc" height="1" width="1" alt=""/> http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2017/06/colorado-court-appeals-multiple-errors-prosecutorial-overreach-not-influence-outcome-trial/feed/ 0 http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2017/06/colorado-court-appeals-multiple-errors-prosecutorial-overreach-not-influence-outcome-trial/ 2017-06-23 15:38 +00:00 2017-06-23 09:38 -06:00 http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/?p=37241 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~3/vKcfJ_0y1Zw/ Case Law Colorado Court of Appeals criminal law habitual criminal proportionality witness tampering Colorado Court of Appeals: Attempts to Tamper with Witness Need Not Actually be Communicated to Victim The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in <em>People v. Brooks</em> on Thursday, June 15, 2017. Fri, 23 Jun 2017 15:34:12 Z http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2017/06/colorado-court-appeals-attempts-tamper-witness-need-not-actually-communicated-victim/#respond CBA-CLE Staff <div class="pf-content"><p>The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_of_Appeals/Opinion/2017/13CA1750-PD.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><em>People v. Brooks</em></a> on Thursday, June 15, 2017.</p> <blockquote><p><em>Assault—Witness Tampering—Evidence—Attempt—Judicial Notice—Plea of Guilty—Grossly Disproportionate.</em></p> <p>Brooks discovered that his girlfriend (the victim) was pregnant with another man’s child, and then argued with and assaulted her. While in jail, Brooks repeatedly telephoned the victim and others in an attempt to persuade them either to not testify against him on the domestic violence charge or to give false testimony. He also wrote letters to the victim to persuade her either to not testify or to testify falsely on his behalf. These letters were intercepted by a jail officer, and as a result, the victim did not receive them. Brooks was convicted of two counts of assault in the third degree against the victim, two counts of assault in the second degree against a peace officer, resisting arrest, violation of a protective order, and two counts of tampering with a witness or victim. The second tampering count was based on the letters. The court adjudicated Brooks a habitual criminal and imposed a mandatory 24-year sentence. Brooks requested and received an abbreviated proportionality review of the mandatory sentence. After that hearing the district court concluded that Brooks’s sentence was not disproportionate and denied him an extended proportionality review.</p> <p>On appeal, Brooks argued that there was insufficient evidence to convict him of the second count of tampering with a witness or victim based on the letters because the victim never received them. The tampering with a witness or victim statute does not require that the “attempt” to tamper actually be communicated to the victim or witness. Therefore, the evidence was sufficient to convict Brooks on this charge.</p> <p>Brooks also argued that the district court abused its discretion in taking judicial notice of the complete case files of his prior felony convictions and that without such improper judicial notice, there was insufficient evidence to support the habitual criminal adjudication. The registers of actions relevant to this case showed that Brooks’s two prior felony convictions were for distinct criminal offenses that occurred months apart. Thus, sufficient evidence supported his habitual criminal conviction.</p> <p>Brooks further argued that his plea of guilty to felony theft from a person was constitutionally invalid and thus could not support his habitual criminal conviction. Brooks’s plea to theft was constitutionally valid because he entered it voluntarily and knowingly. The district court did not err in finding that it was a valid prior felony conviction under the habitual criminal statute.</p> <p>Finally, Brooks argued that the district court erred in concluding that his sentence was not grossly disproportionate to his crimes and in not granting him an extended proportionality review. Tampering with a witness or victim is not a per se “grave or serious” offense. However, the facts underlying these crimes were grave or serious. The prosecution identified at least 250 phone conversations in which Brooks attempted to tamper with a witness or victim. Brooks continued tampering with the victim after the prosecution charged him with the first count of tampering and his phone privileges were discontinued. His conduct demonstrated a blatant disregard for the law and thus constituted a grave or serious offense. The Court of Appeals considered all of the convictions and the underlying circumstances as a whole and concluded that Brooks’s mandatory sentence was not grossly disproportionate.</p> <p>The judgment and sentence were affirmed.</p></blockquote> <p><em>Summary provided courtesy of </em><a href="http://www.cobar.org/-em-The-Colorado-Lawyer-em" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Colorado Lawyer</a>.</p> </div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~4/vKcfJ_0y1Zw" height="1" width="1" alt=""/> http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2017/06/colorado-court-appeals-attempts-tamper-witness-need-not-actually-communicated-victim/feed/ 0 http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2017/06/colorado-court-appeals-attempts-tamper-witness-need-not-actually-communicated-victim/ 2017-06-23 15:34 +00:00 2017-06-23 09:34 -06:00 http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/?p=37239 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~3/_RM81ftC0t0/ Case Law 10th Circuit Tenth Circuit: Unpublished Opinions, 6/22/2017 On Thursday, June 22, 2017, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued no published opinion and five unpublished opinions. Fri, 23 Jun 2017 15:27:11 Z http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2017/06/tenth-circuit-unpublished-opinions-6222017/#respond Susan Hoyt <div class="pf-content"><p>On Thursday, June 22, 2017, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued no published opinion and five unpublished opinions.</p> <p><a href="http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/16/16-3262.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><em>Becker v. Cline</em></a></p> <p><a href="http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/16/16-4108.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><em>United States v. Burton</em></a></p> <p><a href="http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/17/17-1009.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><em>Rice v. Trump</em></a></p> <p><a href="http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/16/16-6299.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><em>Vernon v. Dickson</em></a></p> <p><a href="http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/16/16-6347.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><em>Farris v. Allbaugh</em></a></p> <p>Case summaries are not provided for unpublished opinions. However, some published opinions are <a href="http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/tag/10th-circuit/">summarized and provided by Legal Connection</a>.</p> </div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~4/_RM81ftC0t0" height="1" width="1" alt=""/> http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2017/06/tenth-circuit-unpublished-opinions-6222017/feed/ 0 http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2017/06/tenth-circuit-unpublished-opinions-6222017/ 2017-06-23 15:27 +00:00 2017-06-23 09:27 -06:00 http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/?p=37236 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~3/2bFI1fxMRRo/ Updates 7th Judicial District court appointments Delta County judge appointments Jin Ho Pack Appointed to Delta County Court On Tuesday, June 20, 2017, the governor appointed Jin Ho Pack to the Delta County Court in the 7th Judicial District. Pack will fill a vacancy created by the retirement of Hon. Sandra Miller, effective August 4, 2017. Thu, 22 Jun 2017 15:08:42 Z http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2017/06/jin-ho-pack-appointed-delta-county-court/#respond Susan Hoyt <div class="pf-content"><p>On Tuesday, June 20, 2017, the governor appointed Jin Ho Pack to the Delta County Court in the 7th Judicial District. Pack will fill a vacancy created by the retirement of Hon. Sandra Miller, effective August 4, 2017.</p> <p>Pack is currently the county attorney for Delta County. She has been with the Delta County Attorney&#8217;s Office since 2014. Prior to her work for Delta County, Pack was an associate at Kaplan Law, L.L.C.; a child support enforcement attorney for Young Williams Child Support Services, and a deputy prosecuting attorney in Honolulu, Hawaii. Pack received her undergraduate degree from Duke University and her law degree from the University of Miami School of Law.</p> <p>For more information about the appointment, <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Media/Judge_Appointments/2017/JD07%20-%20Pack.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">click here</a>.</p> </div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~4/2bFI1fxMRRo" height="1" width="1" alt=""/> http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2017/06/jin-ho-pack-appointed-delta-county-court/feed/ 0 http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2017/06/jin-ho-pack-appointed-delta-county-court/ 2017-06-22 15:08 +00:00 2017-06-22 09:08 -06:00 http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/?p=37234 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~3/baB6hw_k0Ig/ Case Law affirmative defense Colorado Supreme Court criminal law element self-defense Colorado Supreme Court: Self-Defense is Not Affirmative Defense to All Crimes Requiring Intent, Knowledge, or Willfulness The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in <em>Roberts v. People</em> on Monday, June 19, 2017. Thu, 22 Jun 2017 15:04:20 Z http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2017/06/colorado-supreme-court-self-defense-not-affirmative-defense-crimes-requiring-intent-knowledge-willfulness/#respond CBA-CLE Staff <div class="pf-content"><p>The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in <em><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2014/14SC517.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Roberts v. People</a></em> on Monday, June 19, 2017.</p> <blockquote><p><em>Affirmative Defenses—Traverses—Self-Defense—Harassment</em>.</p> <p>In this case, the supreme court reviewed the district court’s order affirming petitioner’s county court conviction for harassment. Petitioner asserted that pursuant to <em>People v. Pickering</em>, 276 P.3d 553 (Colo. 2011), self-defense is an affirmative defense to all crimes requiring intent, knowledge, or willfulness. She thus contended that (1) she was entitled to a self-defense affirmative defense instruction to the specific intent crime of harassment, and (2) the county court’s refusal to give such an instruction constituted reversible error. Because <em>Pickering</em> does not establish the broad, bright-line rule that petitioner asserts and thus does not require a trial court to give a self-defense affirmative defense instruction in every case requiring intent, knowledge, or willfulness, the court affirmed the district court’s judgment.</p></blockquote> <p><em>Summary provided courtesy of </em><a href="http://www.cobar.org/-em-The-Colorado-Lawyer-em" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Colorado Lawyer</a>.</p> </div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~4/baB6hw_k0Ig" height="1" width="1" alt=""/> http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2017/06/colorado-supreme-court-self-defense-not-affirmative-defense-crimes-requiring-intent-knowledge-willfulness/feed/ 0 http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2017/06/colorado-supreme-court-self-defense-not-affirmative-defense-crimes-requiring-intent-knowledge-willfulness/ 2017-06-22 15:04 +00:00 2017-06-22 09:04 -06:00 http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/?p=37232 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~3/9w1TvndNjFU/ Case Law Colorado Supreme Court energy law injury in fact Public Utilities Commission standing tax law Colorado Supreme Court: Public Utilities Commission Properly Imposed Tariff After Billing Error The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in <em>Carestream Health, Inc. v. Colorado Public Utilities Commission</em> on Monday, June 19, 2017. Thu, 22 Jun 2017 15:00:46 Z http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2017/06/colorado-supreme-court-public-utilities-commission-properly-imposed-tariff-billing-error/#respond CBA-CLE Staff <div class="pf-content"><p>The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in <em><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2016/16SA53.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Carestream Health, Inc. v. Colorado Public Utilities Commission</a> </em>on Monday, June 19, 2017.</p> <blockquote><p><em>Public Utilities—Tariffs—Standing—Injury-in-Fact. </em></p> <p>In this appeal, the supreme court considered two issues from the district court’s review of a decision of the Colorado Public Utilities Commission. Both issues pertain to a billing error that led Public Service Company of Colorado to undercharge Carestream Health, Inc. for gas it received over the course of a three-year period. The first issue is whether the Commission properly interpreted Public Service’s tariff, specifically the requirement to “exercise all reasonable means” to prevent billing errors. The court concluded that determining what means are “reasonable,” as that term is used in the tariff, necessarily requires considering what errors are foreseeable. The court therefore held that the Commission properly interpreted the tariff and acted pursuant to its authority. The second issue is whether Carestream had standing to challenge Public Service’s use of its tariff to recover a portion of the undercharge from its general customer base. Because Carestream suffered no injury from that action, it lacks standing to challenge it. The court accordingly affirmed the district court’s judgment.</p></blockquote> <p><em>Summary provided courtesy of </em><a href="http://www.cobar.org/-em-The-Colorado-Lawyer-em" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Colorado Lawyer</a>.</p> </div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~4/9w1TvndNjFU" height="1" width="1" alt=""/> http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2017/06/colorado-supreme-court-public-utilities-commission-properly-imposed-tariff-billing-error/feed/ 0 http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2017/06/colorado-supreme-court-public-utilities-commission-properly-imposed-tariff-billing-error/ 2017-06-22 15:00 +00:00 2017-06-22 09:00 -06:00 http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/?p=37230 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~3/WG6zbVC4ybc/ Case Law Colorado Court of Appeals Colorado Court of Appeals: Announcement Sheet, 6/22/2017 On Thursday, June 22, 2017, the Colorado Court of Appeals issued no published opinion and 23 unpublished opinions. Thu, 22 Jun 2017 14:47:44 Z http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2017/06/colorado-court-appeals-announcement-sheet-6222017/#respond Susan Hoyt <div class="pf-content"><p>On Thursday, June 22, 2017, the Colorado Court of Appeals issued no published opinion and 23 unpublished opinions.</p> <p>Neither State Judicial nor the Colorado Bar Association provides case summaries for unpublished appellate opinions. The case announcement sheet is <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_Of_Appeals/Case_Announcements/Files/2017/8B484A06-22-17.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">available here</a>.</p> </div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~4/WG6zbVC4ybc" height="1" width="1" alt=""/> http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2017/06/colorado-court-appeals-announcement-sheet-6222017/feed/ 0 http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2017/06/colorado-court-appeals-announcement-sheet-6222017/ 2017-06-22 14:47 +00:00 2017-06-22 08:47 -06:00 http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/?p=37228 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~3/94LxZ8Y7--E/ Case Law 10th Circuit Tenth Circuit: Unpublished Opinions, 6/21/2017 On Wednesday, June 21, 2017, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued one published opinion and six unpublished opinions. Thu, 22 Jun 2017 14:36:01 Z http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2017/06/tenth-circuit-unpublished-opinions-6212017/#respond Susan Hoyt <div class="pf-content"><p>On Wednesday, June 21, 2017, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued one published opinion and six unpublished opinions.</p> <p><a href="http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/16/16-2213.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><em>Pauly v. Vasquez</em></a></p> <p><a href="http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/16/16-4171.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><em>United States v. Hsu</em></a></p> <p><a href="http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/17/17-3012.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><em>United States v. Ortiz Fernandez</em></a></p> <p><a href="http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/16/16-6317.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><em>United States v. Rabieh</em></a></p> <p><a href="http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/16/16-6339.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><em>Collins v. Bear</em></a></p> <p><a href="http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/16/16-6335.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><em>United States v. Ramirez</em></a></p> <p>Case summaries are not provided for unpublished opinions. However, some published opinions are <a href="http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/tag/10th-circuit/">summarized and provided by Legal Connection</a>.</p> </div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~4/94LxZ8Y7--E" height="1" width="1" alt=""/> http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2017/06/tenth-circuit-unpublished-opinions-6212017/feed/ 0 http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2017/06/tenth-circuit-unpublished-opinions-6212017/ 2017-06-22 14:36 +00:00 2017-06-22 08:36 -06:00 http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/?p=37226 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~3/kHuDAWIN-gc/ Case Law Amendment 64 Colorado Supreme Court criminal law marijuana law medical marijuana Colorado Supreme Court: Manufacturing Marijuana Prohibited for Individuals Under Amendment 64 The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in <em>People v. Lente</em> on Monday, June 19, 2017. Wed, 21 Jun 2017 16:06:03 Z http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2017/06/colorado-supreme-court-manufacturing-marijuana-prohibited-individuals-amendment-64/#respond CBA-CLE Staff <div class="pf-content"><p>The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in <em><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2015/15SA331.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">People v. Lente</a></em> on Monday, June 19, 2017.</p> <blockquote><p><em>State Constitutional Law—Personal Use of Marijuana. </em></p> <p>The supreme court held that the prohibition on processing or manufacturing  marijuana or marijuana concentrate under C.R.S. § 18-18-406(2)(a)(I) is not unconstitutional as applied to Austin Lente, who used butane to extract hash oil from marijuana. Although “processing . . . marijuana plants” is a protected personal activity under Colorado’s Amendment 64, “manufacturing . . . marijuana” is protected only as a facility-operation activity that requires a license. At the time Amendment 64 was  approved, Colorado law established that extracting hash oil was manufacturing, not processing, and the supreme court assumes Amendment 64 adopted that settled meaning. Because Lente was unlicensed, he could not manufacture hash oil under cover of the constitution. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court’s order that ruled the statute is unconstitutional as applied to Lente.</p></blockquote> <p><em>Summary provided courtesy of </em><a href="http://www.cobar.org/-em-The-Colorado-Lawyer-em" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Colorado Lawyer</a>.</p> </div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~4/kHuDAWIN-gc" height="1" width="1" alt=""/> http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2017/06/colorado-supreme-court-manufacturing-marijuana-prohibited-individuals-amendment-64/feed/ 0 http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2017/06/colorado-supreme-court-manufacturing-marijuana-prohibited-individuals-amendment-64/ 2017-06-21 16:06 +00:00 2017-06-21 10:06 -06:00