Legal Connection Blog Updates 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 http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/?p=37224 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~3/kevCcrCaTbo/ Case Law Colorado Supreme Court ground water water court water law Colorado Supreme Court: Petitioners Failed to Satisfy Burden to De-Designate Groundwater Basin The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in <em>Gallegos Family Properties, LLC v. Colorado Groundwater Commission</em> on Monday, June 19, 2017. Wed, 21 Jun 2017 16:02:08 Z http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2017/06/colorado-supreme-court-petitioners-failed-satisfy-burden-de-designate-groundwater-basin/#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/2015/15SA118.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Gallegos Family Properties, LLC v. Colorado Groundwater Commission</a></em> on Monday, June 19, 2017.</p> <blockquote><p><em>Water Law—Designated Groundwater Basins—Costs.</em></p> <p>The supreme court concluded that the designated groundwater court properly concluded that petitioners failed to satisfy their statutory burden in seeking to de-designate a portion of a designated groundwater basin, and therefore, properly denied the petition to de-designate a portion of the basin. The court also concluded that the designated groundwater court properly awarded respondents a portion of their litigation costs as prevailing parties under C.R.C.P. 54(d). The court affirmed the designated groundwater court in both cases.</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/kevCcrCaTbo" height="1" width="1" alt=""/> http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2017/06/colorado-supreme-court-petitioners-failed-satisfy-burden-de-designate-groundwater-basin/feed/ 0 http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2017/06/colorado-supreme-court-petitioners-failed-satisfy-burden-de-designate-groundwater-basin/ 2017-06-21 16:02 +00:00 2017-06-21 10:02 -06:00 http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/?p=37222 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~3/7X6ELtRjfho/ Case Law 10th Circuit Tenth Circuit: Unpublished Opinions, 6/20/2017 On Tuesday, June 20, 2017, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued five published opinions and eight unpublished opinions. Wed, 21 Jun 2017 14:16:42 Z http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2017/06/tenth-circuit-unpublished-opinions-6202017/#respond Susan Hoyt <div class="pf-content"><p>On Tuesday, June 20, 2017, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued five published opinions and eight unpublished opinions.</p> <p><em><a href="http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/15/15-2113.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Clark v. United States</a></em></p> <p><a href="http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/17/17-8003.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><em>Counts v. Wilson</em></a></p> <p><a href="http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/17/17-8024.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><em>United States v. Garcia</em></a></p> <p><a href="http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/17/17-6002.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><em>Erikson v. State of Oklahoma</em></a></p> <p><a href="http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/15/15-3051.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><em>United States v. Moreno</em></a></p> <p><a href="http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/14/14-1192.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><em>Tucker v. Government Employees Insurance Co.</em></a></p> <p><a href="http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/17/17-6005.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><em>Bell v. Social Security Administration</em></a></p> <p><a href="http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/17/17-1063.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><em>Fuller v. Warden</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/~4/7X6ELtRjfho" height="1" width="1" alt=""/> http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2017/06/tenth-circuit-unpublished-opinions-6202017/feed/ 0 http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2017/06/tenth-circuit-unpublished-opinions-6202017/ 2017-06-21 14:16 +00:00 2017-06-21 08:16 -06:00 http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/?p=37219 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~3/uwMVgTnu5Tk/ Case Law Colorado Supreme Court oil and gas law property tax real estate law tax law Colorado Supreme Court: County Assessor Authorized to Retroactively Assess Property Taxes on Oil and Gas Leaseholds The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in <em>Kinder Morgan CO2 Co., L.P. v. Montezuma County Board of Commissioners</em> on Monday, June 19, 2017. Tue, 20 Jun 2017 15:45:14 Z http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2017/06/colorado-supreme-court-county-assessor-authorized-retroactively-assess-property-taxes-oil-gas-leaseholds/#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/2015/15SC595.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Kinder Morgan CO2 Co., L.P. v. Montezuma County Board of Commissioners</a></em> on Monday, June 19, 2017.</p> <blockquote><p><em>Oil and Gas—Property Taxation—Statutory Construction</em>.</p> <p>The supreme court reviewed the court of appeals’ conclusion that the Montezuma County Assessor had statutory authority to retroactively assess property taxes on oil and gas leaseholds operated by Kinder Morgan, after the assessor determined that Kinder Morgan had underreported the wellhead selling price of CO<sub>2</sub> gas produced at the leaseholds. The court considered whether this assessment was authorized under the statute permitting retroactive property tax assessments when, pursuant to C.R.S. § 39-5-125(1), “taxable property has been omitted from the assessment roll.” Given Colorado’s self-reporting scheme for property taxation of oil and gas leaseholds and the legislature’s amendments to that scheme—which describe the “underreporting of the selling price or the quantity of oil and gas sold [from a leasehold]” as a form of omitted property, C.R.S. §§ 29-1-301(1) and 39-10-107(1)—the court concluded that the assessor had statutory authority to issue the assessment in this case. The court further concluded that the Board of Assessment Appeals did not err in determining that Kinder Morgan had underreported the wellhead selling price of CO<sub>2</sub>. The court therefore affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals.</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/uwMVgTnu5Tk" height="1" width="1" alt=""/> http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2017/06/colorado-supreme-court-county-assessor-authorized-retroactively-assess-property-taxes-oil-gas-leaseholds/feed/ 0 http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2017/06/colorado-supreme-court-county-assessor-authorized-retroactively-assess-property-taxes-oil-gas-leaseholds/ 2017-06-20 15:45 +00:00 2017-06-20 09:45 -06:00 http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/?p=37217 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~3/BubPZhggxgo/ Case Law Colorado Supreme Court confrontation clause constitutional law criminal law hearsay testimonial statements Colorado Supreme Court: Nontestimonial Hearsay Statements do Not Implicate Defendant’s Right to Confrontation The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in <em>Nicholls v. People</em> on Monday, June 19, 2017. Tue, 20 Jun 2017 15:40:06 Z http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2017/06/colorado-supreme-court-nontestimonial-hearsay-statements-not-implicate-defendants-right-confrontation/#respond CBA-CLE Staff <div class="pf-content"><p>The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2013/13SC68.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><em>Nicholls v. People</em></a> on Monday, June 19, 2017.</p> <blockquote><p><em>Criminal Trials—Right of Accused to Confront Witnesses—Exceptions to Hearsay Rule—Statements Against Interest.</em></p> <p>In light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s holding in <em>Davis v. Washington</em>, 547 U.S. 813 (2006), the Colorado Supreme Court held that nontestimonial hearsay statements do not implicate a defendant’s state constitutional right to confrontation, overruling <em>Compan v. People</em>, 121 P.3d 876 (Colo. 2005), which held otherwise. Because the hearsay statements at issue in this case were nontestimonial, they did not implicate Colorado’s Confrontation Clause, and the court of appeals did not err in concluding that defendant’s confrontation right was not violated. The court further held that the third requirement for the admission of inculpatory hearsay statements against interest, announced in <em>People v. Newton</em>, 966 P.2d 563, 576 (Colo. 1998) (requiring corroborating circumstances to demonstrate the statement’s trustworthiness), is not constitutionally required for nontestimonial statements against interest. To admit a third party’s nontestimonial statements against interest under the version of CRE 804(b)(3) that existed at the time of defendant’s 2008 trial, only two conditions needed to be satisfied: (1) the witness must have been unavailable, and (2) the statement must have tended to subject the declarant to criminal liability. The court concluded that the third party’s nontestimonial statements against interest satisfied these two requirements, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting these statements as a statement against interest under CRE 804(b)(3), as that rule existed at the time of defendant’s trial. Finally, the court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting testimony about defendant’s response to the death of her second child because the testimony was relevant and not unduly prejudicial; nor did the trial court plainly err in admitting testimony about the cause of the second child’s death because the brief, isolated statements did not so undermine the trial’s fairness as to cast serious doubt on the reliability of defendant’s conviction. Accordingly, the court of appeals’ 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/BubPZhggxgo" height="1" width="1" alt=""/> http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2017/06/colorado-supreme-court-nontestimonial-hearsay-statements-not-implicate-defendants-right-confrontation/feed/ 0 http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2017/06/colorado-supreme-court-nontestimonial-hearsay-statements-not-implicate-defendants-right-confrontation/ 2017-06-20 15:40 +00:00 2017-06-20 09:40 -06:00