Source: https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2014/04/07/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 20:30:42+00:00

Document:
The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in People v. Brown on Monday, April 7, 2014.
Motion to Continue—Right to Counsel of Choice.
The Supreme Court considered the balance between a defendant’s Sixth Amendment constitutional right to his or her counsel of choice and the public’s interest in the fairness and efficiency of the judicial system. The Court held that when deciding whether to grant a continuance to allow a defendant to change counsel, the trial court must conduct a multi-factor balancing test and determine whether the public’s interest in the efficiency and integrity of the judicial system outweighs the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice. Accordingly, the court of appeals’ judgment was reversed and the case was remanded to the trial court for additional findings and conclusions.
The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in People v. Montero-Romero on Monday, April 7, 2014.
Criminal Law—Juror Bias and Removal—Automatic Reversal Rule.
The People petitioned for review of the court of appeals’ judgment in People v. Montero-Romero, No. 10CA833 (Colo.App. Aug. 25, 2011) (not published pursuant to CAR 35(f)), in which that court reversed Montero-Romero’s convictions for first-degree assault and first-degree burglary and his sentence to twenty-eight years in the Department of Corrections. After concluding that the trial court abused its discretion in denying a challenge for cause on the ground of juror bias, and that Montero-Romero removed the prospective juror in question with a peremptory challenge and subsequently exhausted his remaining peremptory challenges, the court of appeals reversed, noting the Supreme Court’s rule of automatic reversal in People v. Macrander, 828 P.2d 234, 244 (Colo. 1992).
The court of appeals’ judgment was reversed. The case was remanded for reconsideration in light of People v. Novotny, 2014 CO 18, in which the Court overruled the bright-line, automatic reversal rule of Macrander and mandated an outcome-specific harmless error analysis.
The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in People v. Roldan on Monday, April 7, 2014.
Criminal Law—Juror Bias and Removal—Automatic Reversal Requirement.
The People petitioned for review of the court of appeals’ judgment in People v. Roldan, ___ P.3d ___, ___, No. 08CA2487 (Colo.App. Jan. 20, 2011), in which the court reversed Roldan’s conviction for theft by receiving and his sentence to three years’ probation. The court of appeals held that the trial court abused its discretion in denying a challenge for cause on the ground of juror bias, and that Roldan removed the prospective juror in question with a peremptory challenge and subsequently exhausted his remaining peremptory challenges. In its decision, the court of appeals relied on the Supreme Court’s bright-line, automatic reversal rule in People v. Macrander, 828 P.2d 234, 244 (Colo. 1992).
Because the court of appeals relied on Macrander, rather than evaluating the likely effect of the trial court’s error on the outcome of the specific case in which it occurred, and because the automatic reversal requirement of Macrander has since been overruled, the judgment of the court of appeals was reversed. The case was remanded for reconsideration in light of the Supreme Court’s holding in People v. Novotny, 2014 CO 18.
On Monday, April 7, 2014, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued no published opinion and one unpublished opinion.
On Monday, April 7, 2014, the Colorado Supreme Court issued four published opinions.
On Friday, April 4, 2014, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued no published opinion and three unpublished opinions.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.