Source: https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2013/03/05/
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 22:23:55+00:00

Document:
Michael Valdez, the CBA Director of Legislative Relations, issued his e-Legislative Report on March 4, 2013. In this issue, he discusses the activity of the CBA Legislative Policy Committee and notable bills at the capitol.
CBA Sponsored. SB 13-77. Concerning certain provisions of the Colorado Probate Code. By Sen. Roberts and Rep. Pabon. On Feb. 27, the Senate gave final approval to the Trusts and Estate Section’s Probate Code Omnibus bill. We added a handful of amendments to the introduced version of the bill.View the bill online.
HB 13-1213. Concerning the uniform asset-freezing orders act. By Rep. Levy. On Feb. 28, the House Judiciary Committee Postponed Indefinitely (killed) the bill at the request of the sponsor. Previously, the CBA LPC had voted to request that the bill be withdrawn to allow for further study and possible amendment. It looks like we have our first summer project from the 2013 legislative session!
SB 13-11. Concerning authorization of civil unions, and, in connection therewith, making an appropriation. By Sen. Steadman and Rep. Ferrandino. On Feb. 28, the House Judiciary Committee approved the bill and sent it to the Finance Committee. This bill makes headlines each time the legislature takes it up. View the bill online.
For summaries of 20 Bills of Interest, 10 from each house, click here or stay tuned to CBA-CLE Legal Connection.
The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in Pham v. State Farm Auto Insurance Co. on Monday, March 4, 2013.
Statute of Limitations—Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist Claims—CRS § 13-80-107.5.
Steven Pham, representing the estate of the driver of a car involved in a traffic accident, as well as the deceased driver’s parents and the five passengers in his car at the time, sought review of the court of appeals’ judgment. The court of appeals affirmed a summary judgment in favor of State Farm Automobile Insurance Company on the ground that plaintiffs’ claims were barred by the statute of limitations governing underinsured motorist claims, found at CRS § 13-80-107.5(1)(b).
The Supreme Court affirmed. The Court held that plaintiffs failed to file this action or demand arbitration of their underinsured motorist claims within either three years of the accrual of their cause of action or within two years after receiving payment of a settlement or judgment on an underlying bodily injury liability claim that had been preserved as prescribed by the statute.
The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in People v. Hassen on Thursday, February 28, 2013.
Defendant Omer Hassen appealed his criminal conviction following a jury trial, along with his sentence. The judgment was reversed and the case was remanded for a new trial.
During trial, the prosecution requested that the courtroom be closed during the testimony of two police officers. The prosecution explained that the witnesses were working undercover at the time of trial and expressed concerns that a spectator might recognize them as police officers. Hassen objected, contending the trial court abused its discretion when it closed the courtroom during the testimony of the two officers. However, the trial court granted the prosecution’s request and excluded the public.
Criminal defendants have a right, guaranteed by both the U.S. and Colorado Constitutions, to a public trial. Here, the trial court failed to articulate an overriding interest that would support the total closure of the courtroom, to make findings as to why Hassen’s presence in the courtroom was a risk, to consider less restrictive alternatives to total closure, and to make any findings to support the closure. Therefore, the trial court abused its discretion in ordering the total closure of the courtroom during the testimony of the two undercover police officers.
The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in People v. Garcia on Thursday, February 28, 2013.
County Court—Re-Filing Complaint—Jurisdiction—Statement of Good Cause—Crim.P. 5(a)(4)(VII).
Defendant appealed the order of the district court concluding it had jurisdiction to accept his guilty plea. The order was affirmed.
On August 28, 2008, the People filed a complaint against defendant in Alamosa County Court, alleging assault in the second degree. The complaint was dismissed after the prosecution was unable to produce witnesses for a preliminary hearing. On December 12, 2008, the People re-filed the complaint in Alamosa County Court. Defendant waived his right to a preliminary hearing, and on April 6, 2009, he pleaded guilty to felony menacing in Alamosa District Court.
Defendant argued that the prosecution was not permitted to re-file the charges in county court and, alternatively, that failure to include a statement of good cause with the re-filing of felony criminal charges in county court pursuant to Crim.P. 5(a)(4)(VII) created a jurisdictional bar to his prosecution. First, Crim.P. 5(a)(4)(VII) now authorizes the re-filing of charges in county court. Next, the prosecutor’s failure to file a statement of good cause was not a jurisdictional defect but a procedural defect, which defendant waived when he pleaded guilty.
On Friday, March 1, 2013, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued one published opinion and three unpublished opinions.
Webb v. Oklahoma Dep’t of Human Servs.

References: v. 
 § 13
 § 13
 v. 
 v. 
 v.