Legal Connection Blog Updates http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/?p=39943 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~3/GcKNqtjGYFk/ Job Satisfaction career satisfacction career transition economics happiness inspiration job search Old Dog, Old Trick, New Showtime Blockchain consultant and futurist Michael Spencer called it a conspiracy by the 0.01 percenters to enslave the rest of us for good.[1] A growing number of those 0.01 percenters have already supported it, but they’re not alone: this poll conducted shortly after the 2016 election showed that half of Americans supported it as well. A parade of think tanks (here’s one) and other professional skeptics (more than I can cite with hyperlinks in a single sentence) have given it a thorough vetting and mostly concluded yeah well maybe it’s worth a try. Thu, 15 Nov 2018 15:37:57 Z https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2018/11/old-dog-old-trick-new-showtime/#respond Kevin Rhodes <div class="pf-content"><p><a href="http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2018/11/old-dog-old-trick-new-showtime/olddognewtrick/" rel="attachment wp-att-39944"><img class="size-full wp-image-39944 aligncenter" src="http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/old20dog20new20trick.jpg" alt="" width="271" height="154" srcset="https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/old20dog20new20trick.jpg 271w, https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/old20dog20new20trick-150x85.jpg 150w" sizes="(max-width: 271px) 100vw, 271px" /></a></p> <p><a href="https://medium.com/@Michael_Spencer/is-universal-basic-income-really-a-solution-c0d6d95f100e">Blockchain consultant and futurist Michael Spencer called it</a> a conspiracy by the 0.01 percenters to enslave the rest of us for good.<a href="#_edn1" name="_ednref1">[1]</a> <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/27/what-billionaires-say-about-universal-basic-income-in-2017.html">A growing number</a> of those 0.01 percenters have already supported it, but they’re not alone: <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/19/about-half-of-americans-support-giving-residents-up-to-2000-a-month-when-robots-take-our-jobs.html">this poll</a> conducted shortly after the 2016 election showed that half of Americans supported it as well. A parade of think tanks (<a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/31/1000-per-month-cash-handout-would-grow-the-economy-by-2-point-5-trillion.html">here’s one</a>) and other professional skeptics (more than I can cite with hyperlinks in a single sentence) have given it a thorough vetting and mostly concluded yeah well maybe it’s worth a try.</p> <p>What is “it”? This idea: give the poor what they lack — money. Ensure everyone a livable income while getting rid of the expensive and draconian welfare system. And just to be fair, go ahead and give everyone else money, too, even the billionaires.</p> <p>The idea mostly goes by the name “universal basic income” (UBI). It’s rooted in the futuristic fear that technology will eventually put humans out of work. That’s not an old fear: UBI is “far from a new idea,” says <a href="https://econfuture.wordpress.com/about/">Martin Ford</a>, another Silicon Valley entrepreneur and a popular <a href="https://www.ted.com/talks/martin_ford_how_we_ll_earn_money_in_a_future_without_jobs">TED talker</a>, in his <em>New York Times</em> Bestselling <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Robots-Technology-Threat-Jobless/dp/0465059996"><em>Rise of the Robots: Technology and the Threat of a Jobless Future</em></a><em>.</em></p> <blockquote><p>In the context of the contemporary American political landscape . . . a guaranteed income is likely to be disparaged as &#8220;socialism&#8221; and a massive expansion of the welfare state. The idea’s historical origins, however, suggest something quite different. While a basic income has been embraced by economists and intellectuals on both sides of the political spectrum, the idea has been advocated especially forcefully by conservatives and libertarians.</p> <p>Friedrich Hayek, who has become an iconic figure among today’s conservatives, was a strong proponent of the idea. In his three-volume work. <em>Law, Legislation and Liberty</em>, published between 1973 and 1979, Hayek suggested that a guaranteed income would be a legitimate government policy designed to provide against adversity, and that the need for this type of safety net is the direct result of the transition to a more open and mobile society where many individuals can no longer rely on traditional support systems:</p> <p style="padding-left: 30px;">There is, however, yet another class of common risks with regard to which the need for government action has until recently not been generally admitted. . . . The problem here is chiefly the fate of those who for various reasons cannot make their living in the market . . . that is, all people suffering from adverse conditions which may affect anyone and against which most individuals cannot alone make adequate protection but in which a society that has reached a certain level of wealth can afford to provide for all.</p> </blockquote> <p>LBJ foresaw the possibility of massive technological unemployment back in the 60s and appointed an “Ad Hoc Committee on the Triple Revolution” to study the topic. The Committee included co-Nobel Prize winners Friedrich Hayek and Swedish economist and sociologist Gunnar Myrdal.<a href="#_edn2" name="_ednref2">[2]</a> <em>Rise of the Robots</em> describes the Committee’s findings:</p> <blockquote><p>&#8220;Cybernation&#8221; (or automation) would soon result in an economy where &#8220;potentially unlimited output can be achieved by systems of machines which will require little cooperation from human beings.&#8221; The result would be massive unemployment, soaring inequality, and, ultimately, falling demand for goods and services as consumers increasingly lacked the purchasing power necessary to continue driving economic growth.</p> <p>The Ad Hoc Committee went on to propose a radical solution: the eventual implementation of a guaranteed minimum income made possible by the &#8220;economy of abundance&#8221; such widespread automation would create, and which would &#8220;take the place of the patchwork of welfare measures&#8221; that were then in place to address poverty.</p> <p>The Triple Revolution report was released to the media and sent to President Johnson, the secretary of labor, and congressional leaders in March 1964. An accompanying cover letter warned ominously that if something akin to the report’s proposed solutions was not implemented, &#8220;the nation will be thrown into unprecedented economic and social disorder.&#8221; A front-page story with extensive quotations from the report appeared in the next day’s New York Times, and numerous other newspapers and magazines ran stories and editorials (most of which were critical), in some cases even printing the entire text of the report.</p> <p>The Triple Revolution marked what was perhaps the crest of a wave of worry about the impact of automation that had arisen following World War II. The specter of mass joblessness as machines displaced workers had incited fear many times in the past — going all the way back to Britain’s Luddite uprising in 1812 — but in the 1950s the 60s, the concern was especially acute and was articulated by some of the United States’ most prominent and intellectually capable individuals.</p> <p>Four months after the Johnson administration received the Triple Revolution report, the president signed a bill creating the National Commission on Technology, Automation, and Economic Progress. In his remarks at the bills signing ceremony, Johnson said that &#8220;automation can be the ally of our prosperity if we will just look ahead, if we will understand what is to come, and if we will set our course wisely after proper planning for the future.&#8221; The newly formed Commission then . . . quickly faded into obscurity.</p></blockquote> <p>A few years later, <a href="https://www.themonthly.com.au/blog/rutger-bregman/2017/27/2017/1493250489/bizarre-tale-president-nixon-s-basic-income-plan">Richard Nixon introduced UBI legislation that he called</a> “The most significant piece of social legislation in our nation’s history.” That legislation also faded into obscurity — more on that another time.</p> <p>Thus, UBI is an old idea responding to an old fear: how do we make a living if we can’t work for it? A half century after LBJ and Nixon, that fear is all too real, and lots of people think it might be time for the historical UBI solution to make its appearance.</p> <p>But not everyone is jumping on the UBI bandwagon. The very thought that <em>jobs</em> might not be the source of our sustenance is the rallying cry of UBI’s most strident opponents.</p> <p><em>More on UBI next time.</em></p> <hr /> <p><a href="#_ednref1" name="_edn1">[1]</a> Spencer followed with a similarly scathing assessment <a href="https://medium.com/futuresin/basic-income-new-form-prison-slavery-what-if-f5042215f2a2">in this article</a>.</p> <p><a href="#_ednref2" name="_edn2">[2]</a> Myrdal’s study of race relations was influential in <em>Brown v. Board of Education.</em> He was also an architect of the Swedish social democratic welfare state. Hayek and Myrdal were jointly awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1974.</p> </div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~4/GcKNqtjGYFk" height="1" width="1" alt=""/> https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2018/11/old-dog-old-trick-new-showtime/feed/ 0 https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2018/11/old-dog-old-trick-new-showtime/ 2018-11-15 15:37 +00:00 2018-11-15 08:37 -07:00 http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/?p=39941 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~3/m_gkaFgsN1A/ Updates Colorado Court of Appeals court appointments judge appointments Supreme Court Nominating Commission Finalists Selected for Colorado Court of Appeals Vacancy On Tuesday, November 13, 2018, the Colorado State Judicial Branch announced the Supreme Court Nominating Commission's selection of three finalists to fill a vacancy on the Colorado Court of Appeals. The vacancy will be created by the retirement of Chief Judge Alan Loeb, effective December 28, 2018. Thu, 15 Nov 2018 15:26:39 Z https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2018/11/finalists-selected-for-colorado-court-of-appeals-vacancy/#respond Susan Hoyt <div class="pf-content"><p>On Tuesday, November 13, 2018, the Colorado State Judicial Branch announced the Supreme Court Nominating Commission&#8217;s selection of three finalists to fill a vacancy on the Colorado Court of Appeals. The vacancy will be created by the retirement of Chief Judge Alan Loeb, effective December 28, 2018.</p> <p>The three nominees are Michael Beaver, Kendra Beckwith, and Matthew Grove. Michael Beaver is a partner at Holland &amp; Hart, where his practice focuses on ski and recreation law, employment and employee benefits law, and insurance litigation. Kendra Beckwith is a partner in the Messner Reeves LLP litigation group, where she focuses on appellate and complex litigation. Matthew Grove is a Deputy Attorney General for the State of Colorado.</p> <p>Under the Colorado Constitution, the governor has 15 days from November 14 in which to appoint one of the three nominees to the Colorado Court of Appeals. Comments regarding the nominees may be emailed to the governor at <a href="mailto:gov_judicialappointments@state.co.us">gov_judicialappointments@state.co.us</a>. For more information about the nominees, <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Media/Judge_Nominees/COA%20-%20Loeb%20nominees%20FINAL.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">click here</a>.</p> </div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~4/m_gkaFgsN1A" height="1" width="1" alt=""/> https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2018/11/finalists-selected-for-colorado-court-of-appeals-vacancy/feed/ 0 https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2018/11/finalists-selected-for-colorado-court-of-appeals-vacancy/ 2018-11-15 15:26 +00:00 2018-11-15 08:26 -07:00 http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/?p=39939 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~3/dMkZNtbOHP8/ Case Law 10th Circuit Tenth Circuit: Unpublished Opinions, 11/14/2018 On Wednesday, November 14, 2018, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued no published opinion and three unpublished opinions. Thu, 15 Nov 2018 15:06:37 Z https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2018/11/tenth-circuit-unpublished-opinions-11-14-2018/#respond Susan Hoyt <div class="pf-content"><p>On Wednesday, November 14, 2018, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued no published opinion and three unpublished opinions.</p> <p><a href="https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/18/18-4046.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><em>Lauer v. Commissioner, SSA</em></a></p> <p><a href="https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/18/18-3170.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><em>United States v. Singleton</em></a></p> <p><a href="https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/18/18-3163.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><em>United States v. Dyke</em></a></p> <p>Case summaries are not provided for unpublished opinions. However, some published opinions are <a href="https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/tag/10th-circuit/">summarized and provided by Legal Connection</a>.</p> </div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~4/dMkZNtbOHP8" height="1" width="1" alt=""/> https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2018/11/tenth-circuit-unpublished-opinions-11-14-2018/feed/ 0 https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2018/11/tenth-circuit-unpublished-opinions-11-14-2018/ 2018-11-15 15:06 +00:00 2018-11-15 08:06 -07:00 http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/?p=39937 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~3/pJjlDJIsJ2A/ Case Law child abuse Colorado Supreme Court criminal law double jeopardy lesser included offense Colorado Supreme Court: Child Abuse Resulting in Death is Lesser Included Offense of Child Abuse Murder The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in <em>Friend v. People</em> on Tuesday, November 13, 2018. Wed, 14 Nov 2018 16:04:22 Z https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2018/11/colorado-supreme-court-child-abuse-resulting-in-death-is-lesser-included-offense-of-child-abuse-murder/#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/2014/14SC997.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><em>Friend v. People</em></a> on Tuesday, November 13, 2018.</p> <blockquote><p><em>Plain Error Review—Double Jeopardy—Merger—Lesser Included Offenses. </em></p> <p>This case principally presents two double jeopardy questions: (1) whether the child abuse statute, C.R.S. § 18-6-401, prescribes more than one unit of prosecution and whether the prosecution presented sufficient evidence to establish that defendant committed more than one crime of child abuse; and (2) whether child abuse resulting in death under C.R.S. § 18-6-401(1)(a) and (7)(a)(1) is a lesser included offense of first-degree murder of a child under C.R.S. § 18-3-102(1)(f) (“child abuse murder”).</p> <p>As to the first double jeopardy question presented here, applying the principles set forth in <em>Schneider v. People</em>, 382 P.3d 835, 839 (Colo. 2016), and <em>People v. Abiodun</em>, 111 P.3d 462, 466–68 (Colo. 2005), the supreme court concluded that the division below correctly determined that C.R.S. § 18-6-401 creates one crime of child abuse that can be committed in alternative ways. The question thus becomes whether the prosecution proved separate counts of child abuse. The court again agreed with the division and concluded that the prosecution did not do so, and thus each of the child abuse convictions must merge into one conviction for child abuse resulting in death.</p> <p>As to the second double jeopardy question at issue, the court concluded for two reasons that the division erred in determining that defendant’s merged child abuse resulting in death conviction does not merge into his child abuse murder conviction. First, the plain language of the applicable statutes shows that “[w]hen a person knowingly causes the death of a child who has not yet attained twelve years of age and the person committing the offense is one in a position of trust with respect to the child,” that person is to be convicted of child abuse murder and not child abuse resulting in death. C.R.S. § 18-6-401(7)(c). Second, under the clarified principles set forth in <em>People v. Rock</em>, 402 P.3d 472 (Colo. 2017), and <em>Page v. People</em>, 402 P.3d 468 (Colo. 2017), which were announced after the division’s decision in this case, child abuse resulting in death is a lesser included offense of child abuse murder.</p> <p>Having determined that the trial court erred in not merging the various counts in this case, the question remained whether these errors were plain. The court concluded that they were and therefore affirmed in part and reversed in part the division’s judgment.</p></blockquote> <p><em>Summary provided courtesy of </em><a href="https://www.cobar.org/-em-Colorado-Lawyer-em" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Colorado Lawyer</a>.</p> </div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~4/pJjlDJIsJ2A" height="1" width="1" alt=""/> https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2018/11/colorado-supreme-court-child-abuse-resulting-in-death-is-lesser-included-offense-of-child-abuse-murder/feed/ 0 https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2018/11/colorado-supreme-court-child-abuse-resulting-in-death-is-lesser-included-offense-of-child-abuse-murder/ 2018-11-14 16:04 +00:00 2018-11-14 09:04 -07:00 http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/?p=39935 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~3/N-z1BaJ_7dc/ Case Law Colorado Supreme Court criminal law right to be present at trial waiver Colorado Supreme Court: Formal Advisement of Right to Be Present Not Prerequisite to Valid Waiver of Right The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in <em>People v. Janis</em> on Tuesday, November 13, 2018. Wed, 14 Nov 2018 15:55:31 Z https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2018/11/colorado-supreme-court-formal-advisement-of-right-to-be-present-not-prerequisite-to-valid-waiver-of-right/#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/2016/16SC515.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><em>People v. Janis</em></a> on Tuesday, November 13, 2018.</p> <blockquote><p><em>Right to Be Present—Waiver—Formal Advisements. </em></p> <p>At trial, defendant, who was in custody, asked through her counsel to leave the courtroom during the victim’s testimony. She claimed that the testimony might trigger her post-traumatic stress disorder. Without first advising her of her right to be present or inquiring with her directly about her desire to leave, the trial court granted defendant’s request. Defendant asserted on appeal that this constituted reversible error. A division of the court of appeals agreed.</p> <p>The supreme court held that a formal advisement of the right to be present at trial is not a prerequisite to a valid waiver of that right, even when a defendant is in custody. The touchstone is whether, under the totality of the circumstances, the waiver was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. In this case, the court concluded that defendant’s waiver was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. Accordingly, the court reversed the court of appeals’ judgment and remanded the case to address any previously unresolved issues.</p></blockquote> <p><em>Summary provided courtesy of </em><a href="https://www.cobar.org/-em-Colorado-Lawyer-em" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Colorado Lawyer</a>.</p> </div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~4/N-z1BaJ_7dc" height="1" width="1" alt=""/> https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2018/11/colorado-supreme-court-formal-advisement-of-right-to-be-present-not-prerequisite-to-valid-waiver-of-right/feed/ 0 https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2018/11/colorado-supreme-court-formal-advisement-of-right-to-be-present-not-prerequisite-to-valid-waiver-of-right/ 2018-11-14 15:55 +00:00 2018-11-14 08:55 -07:00 http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/?p=39933 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~3/Uy_qOhwr-5o/ Case Law 10th Circuit Tenth Circuit: Unpublished Opinions, 11/13/2018 On Tuesday, November 13, 2018, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued no published opinion and one unpublished opinion. Wed, 14 Nov 2018 15:50:39 Z https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2018/11/tenth-circuit-unpublished-opinions-11-13-2018/#respond Susan Hoyt <div class="pf-content"><p>On Tuesday, November 13, 2018, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued no published opinion and one unpublished opinion.</p> <p><a href="https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/18/18-5082.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><em>United States v. Thornbrugh</em></a></p> <p>Case summaries are not provided for unpublished opinions. However, some published opinions are <a href="https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/tag/10th-circuit/">summarized and provided by Legal Connection</a>.</p> </div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~4/Uy_qOhwr-5o" height="1" width="1" alt=""/> https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2018/11/tenth-circuit-unpublished-opinions-11-13-2018/feed/ 0 https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2018/11/tenth-circuit-unpublished-opinions-11-13-2018/ 2018-11-14 15:50 +00:00 2018-11-14 08:50 -07:00 http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/?p=39930 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~3/gjF8-ux2iP8/ Case Law Colorado Supreme Court Colorado Supreme Court: Announcement Sheet, 11/13/2018 On Tuesday, November 13, 2018, the Colorado Supreme Court issued three published opinions. Tue, 13 Nov 2018 16:41:03 Z https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2018/11/colorado-supreme-court-announcement-sheet-11-13-2018/#respond Susan Hoyt <div class="pf-content"><p>On Tuesday, November 13, 2018, the Colorado Supreme Court issued three published opinions.</p> <p><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2016/16SC515.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><em>People v. Janis</em></a></p> <p><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2014/14SC997.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><em>Friend v. People</em></a></p> <p><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2017/17SA130.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><em>People v. Sease</em></a></p> <p>Summaries of these cases are forthcoming.</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/Supreme_Court/Case_Announcements/Files/2018/13ECA711.13.18.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">available here</a>.</p> </div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~4/gjF8-ux2iP8" height="1" width="1" alt=""/> https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2018/11/colorado-supreme-court-announcement-sheet-11-13-2018/feed/ 0 https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2018/11/colorado-supreme-court-announcement-sheet-11-13-2018/ 2018-11-13 16:41 +00:00 2018-11-13 09:41 -07:00 http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/?p=39928 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~3/mBgv8x4maQA/ Case Law 10th Circuit Tenth Circuit: Unpublished Opinions, 11/9/2018 On Friday, November 9, 2018, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued three published opinions and two unpublished opinions. Mon, 12 Nov 2018 15:18:13 Z https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2018/11/tenth-circuit-unpublished-opinions-11-9-2018/#respond Susan Hoyt <div class="pf-content"><p>On Friday, November 9, 2018, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued three published opinions and two unpublished opinions.</p> <p><a href="https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/18/18-2123.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><em>United States v. Espinoza-Talamantes</em></a></p> <p><a href="https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/18/18-5068.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><em>Johnson v. Allbaugh</em></a></p> <p>Case summaries are not provided for unpublished opinions. However, some published opinions are <a href="https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/tag/10th-circuit/">summarized and provided by Legal Connection</a>.</p> </div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~4/mBgv8x4maQA" height="1" width="1" alt=""/> https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2018/11/tenth-circuit-unpublished-opinions-11-9-2018/feed/ 0 https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2018/11/tenth-circuit-unpublished-opinions-11-9-2018/ 2018-11-12 15:18 +00:00 2018-11-12 08:18 -07:00 http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/?p=39926 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~3/9YiPMqKyKvw/ Case Law child abuse Colorado Court of Appeals criminal law sexual assault Colorado Court of Appeals: Child Sexual Assault Victim Cannot Legally Consent to Use of Force During Assault The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in <em>People v. Hodge</em> on Thursday, November 1, 2018. Fri, 09 Nov 2018 15:52:03 Z https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2018/11/colorado-court-of-appeals-child-sexual-assault-victim-cannot-legally-consent-to-use-of-force-during-assault/#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/2018/18CA0710-PD.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><em>People v. Hodge</em></a> on Thursday, November 1, 2018.</p> <blockquote><p><em>Criminal Law—Sexual Assault—Child—Use of Force Aggravator—Consent.</em></p> <p>The prosecution charged Hodge with three counts of sexual assault on a child and alleged that he used force against the victim to accomplish the sexual contact. The use of force aggravator made each charge a class 3 felony under C.R.S. § 18-3-405(1) and (2)(a). The district court dismissed the force aggravators based on its finding that because the 14-year-old victim had consented to the force used (restraints), the prosecution did not establish probable cause for the use of force at the preliminary hearing.</p> <p>On appeal, the prosecution argued that the district court erred in dismissing the use of force aggravators. A child sexual assault victim cannot legally consent to the use of force during an unlawful sexual act. Therefore, the district court erred in finding that the victim’s agreement to the use of restraints did not constitute the use of force.</p> <p>The order dismissing the use of force aggravator was reversed, and the case was remanded for reinstatement of the original charges as class 3 felony sexual assault on a child.</p></blockquote> <p><em>Summary provided courtesy of </em><a href="https://www.cobar.org/-em-Colorado-Lawyer-em" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Colorado Lawyer</a>.</p> </div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~4/9YiPMqKyKvw" height="1" width="1" alt=""/> https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2018/11/colorado-court-of-appeals-child-sexual-assault-victim-cannot-legally-consent-to-use-of-force-during-assault/feed/ 0 https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2018/11/colorado-court-of-appeals-child-sexual-assault-victim-cannot-legally-consent-to-use-of-force-during-assault/ 2018-11-09 15:52 +00:00 2018-11-09 08:52 -07:00 http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/?p=39924 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~3/eJ2-6wilrFk/ Case Law child support Colorado Court of Appeals domestic relations law family law parenting time Colorado Court of Appeals: When Voluntary Parenting Time Change Occurs, District Court May Order Retroactive Child Support The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in <em>In re Marriage of Garrett and Heine</em> on Thursday, November 1, 2018. Fri, 09 Nov 2018 15:49:30 Z https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2018/11/colorado-court-of-appeals-when-voluntary-parenting-time-change-occurs-district-court-may-order-retroactive-child-support/#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/2018/17CA1219-PD.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><em>In re Marriage of Garrett and Heine</em></a> on Thursday, November 1, 2018.</p> <blockquote><p><em>Family Law</em><em>—</em><em>Post-Dissolution</em><em>—</em><em>Modification of Child Support</em><em>—</em><em>Retroactive Child Support</em><em>—</em><em>Parenting Time.</em></p> <p>In this post-dissolution of marriage proceeding, both parents moved to modify parenting time. The district court entered a week on, week off parenting schedule and modified child support accordingly. In June 2015 the parents mutually agreed to modify this schedule so father would be the primary residential parent and mother would have parenting time every other weekend and one evening per week. Accordingly, father began paying mother a reduced amount of child support and then moved to modify child support in July 2016. The parties again agreed to change parenting time in February 2017, with mother the primary residential parent of one child and father the primary residential parent of the other child. The district court found that mother owed retroactive child support based on the substantial changes in parenting time beginning in June 2015, and it offset that amount against father’s current child support obligation.</p> <p>On appeal, mother contended that the district court erred when it imputed income to her without finding she was voluntarily underemployed. If a parent is voluntarily underemployed, child support must be calculated based on the parent’s income. Here, the court did not explicitly find that mother was voluntarily underemployed and shirking her child support obligation and the record does not support such findings. Nor did the court make any findings concerning the reasonableness of mother’s efforts to secure a full-time position at her previous salary. Thus, the case was remanded to the district court for additional findings, reconsideration of mother’s income, and recalculation of child support accordingly.</p> <p>Mother further contended that the district court erred in applying C.R.S. § 14-10-122(5) and ordering her to pay retroactive child support back to June 2015. When a voluntary change in parenting time occurs, a court may retroactively enter a child support order against either parent without regard to the parent’s status as obligor or obligee under the existing child support order. However, the record is not clear on whether the district court imposed the retroactive child support obligation as an act of discretion or imposed it under the mistaken view that it was required to do so. On remand, the district court must set forth the factors it considers in determining whether to impose such an obligation.</p> <p>The order retroactively establishing a child support obligation for mother was affirmed. The portion of the order determining mother’s income was reversed and the case was remanded for further proceedings.</p></blockquote> <p><em>Summary provided courtesy of </em><a href="https://www.cobar.org/-em-Colorado-Lawyer-em" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Colorado Lawyer</a>.</p> </div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~4/eJ2-6wilrFk" height="1" width="1" alt=""/> https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2018/11/colorado-court-of-appeals-when-voluntary-parenting-time-change-occurs-district-court-may-order-retroactive-child-support/feed/ 0 https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2018/11/colorado-court-of-appeals-when-voluntary-parenting-time-change-occurs-district-court-may-order-retroactive-child-support/ 2018-11-09 15:49 +00:00 2018-11-09 08:49 -07:00