Source: https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2010/07/12/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 20:43:51+00:00

Document:
State Judicial updated court forms and instructions for use by persons requiring a legal name change to procure identity-related documents after a felony conviction. The forms may also be used by persons adjudicated as a juvenile delinquent for any offense that, had it been committed by an adult, would have been considered a felony. The new forms are already in effect (as of July 1), and practitioners should begin using them immediately.
These forms are available in Adobe Acrobat (PDF) and Microsoft Word formats. They are also available as Word templates; download templates from State Judicial.
State Judicial updated instructions for several different categories of court forms, all with a July 1 effective date.
All instructions are available in Adobe Acrobat (PDF) format.
Within the legal profession — and even more so for attorneys who practice in the estate planning, elder law, and probate areas — the potential need for Medicaid in the future for our clients creeps into many cases. Learn more next Wednesday, July 14, when CBA CLE presents elder lawyer Tammy Conover, of the Denver law firm of Steenrod, Schwartz & McMinimee, at Medicaid: Recognizing the Potential Hazards in Your Practice, a lunchtime program that will help practitioners understand the many potential landmines that Medicaid may create in seemingly routine matters.
This program will be held in CBA CLE’s classroom on July 14 at noon. Live attendees receive lunch with their registration. It is also available via live webcast, MP3 download, and video on-demand. It has been submitted for one general CLE credit.
And don’t forget to mark your calendar for the 2nd Annual Elder Law Retreat (August 26-28, 2010, in Breckenridge)!
The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in People v. Harland on July 8, 2010.
Sexual Assault on a Child—DNA Database—Identification—Evidence—Relevance—Unfair Prejudice.
Defendant appealed the judgment of conviction entered on jury verdicts finding him guilty of first-degree burglary, sexual assault on a child, enticement of a child, attempted sexual assault on a child, and two counts of indecent exposure. The judgment was affirmed.
In 2003, J.E. (then age 10) and her younger brother (then age 4) were home alone and decided to hold a garage sale. During the garage sale, an unknown man approached them and asked for something to drink. J.E. went inside the house to get the man an iced tea. The man followed her inside, where he sexually assaulted her. Defendant was arrested after a positive DNA profile match identified him as the perpetrator.
Defendant contended that the district court erred in denying his motion in limine to exclude any reference to the use of DNA databases to identify him as a suspect. The Court of Appeals disagreed. The evidence was relevant to the credibility of the investigator who conducted the DNA analysis because it explained how defendant became a suspect and showed the thoroughness of the police investigation and analysis. Further, the testimony did not create any significant danger of unfair prejudice because (1) the investigator only briefly mentioned the databases; (2) the investigator did not testify as to how defendant’s DNA profile came to be in the second database; and (3) no evidence was presented that defendant had previously engaged in any criminal activity.
The Court also rejected defendant’s contention that there was insufficient evidence to prove he was the perpetrator. Defendant’s DNA was found on J.E.’s undergarments and on tissues located inside J.E.’s home. In addition, J.E. provided the police with a detailed physical description of the assailant, which matched defendant’s description. Therefore, there was sufficient evidence from which a reasonable fact finder could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was the perpetrator.
This summary is published here courtesy of The Colorado Lawyer. Other summaries by the Colorado Court of Appeals on July 8, 2010, can be found here.
The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in People v. Reeves on July 8, 2010.
Possession—Schedule II Controlled Substance—Evidence—Jury Instructions—Closing Argument.
Defendant appealed the judgment of conviction entered on jury verdicts finding him guilty of one count of possession of more than one gram of a schedule II controlled substance and three counts of possession of one gram or less of a schedule IV controlled substance. He also appealed the sentence imposed on the three counts. The conviction was affirmed.
Defendant was arrested on an unrelated offense and searched. Police found a small baggie in his sock that contained various pills later determined to be schedule II and IV controlled substances. The jury found him guilty of possession of more than one gram of a schedule II controlled substance, along with three other charges.
Defendant contended that the statute for possession of more than one gram of a schedule II controlled substance requires proof that he possessed more than one gram of oxycodone itself. Therefore, he argued, the instruction as to the fifth element violated his constitutional rights, because it allowed the jury to convict him for possessing a tablet weighing more than one gram but that possibly contained only one gram or less of oxycodone.
The Court of Appeals disagreed. Possession of more than one gram of a compound, mixture, or preparation containing a schedule II controlled substance constitutes a class 4 felony, in violation of CRS § 18-18-405. Under subsection (1)(a), the offense level and sentence do not depend on the amount or weight of the substance possessed, with two exceptions: (1) possession of one gram or less of such a compound, mixture, or preparation constitutes a class 6 felony, in violation of subsection (2.3)(a); and (2) possession of at least twenty-five grams or one ounce of such a compound, mixture, or preparation subjects the violator to enhanced sentencing under subsection (3)(a). To conclude otherwise would be illogical because the two exceptions to the offense that otherwise requires sentencing as a class 4 felony would then apply to offenses having different elements than the primary offense from which they are exceptions. Therefore, the language of the instruction did not fail to state the elements of the offense, nor was it constitutionally deficient.
Defendant also argued that the trial court committed plain error when it allowed the prosecutor to state in rebuttal closing argument that although defendant possessed prescription pills, he did not have prescriptions for them. The Court disagreed. Defense counsel argued that the possibility defendant had a prescription for the drugs could raise a reasonable doubt as to his guilt. Therefore, the prosecution was entitled to point to the lack of evidence supporting such a defense.
The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in People in the Interest of B.S.M. on July 8, 2010.
Stepparent—Dependency and Neglect—Foster Care Fees—CRS § 19-1-115.
William Gray Shirer (stepfather) appealed from the district court’s judgment against him for $40,738.24 in foster care fees incurred by the Gunnison County Department of Human Services (DHS) on behalf of his former stepson (B.S.M.). The judgment was reversed.
Stepfather was married to B.S.M.’s mother (mother), but is not the biological or adoptive father of B.S.M. When the couple’s marriage was dissolved in Louisiana in 2005, stepfather and mother were granted joint custody of B.S.M. Stepfather later moved to Colorado and did not thereafter live with mother or exercise parenting time with B.S.M. DHS instituted a dependency and neglect proceeding concerning B.S.M. in 2006 as to mother, and placed him in foster care. Stepfather declined to take custody of B.S.M. Following a hearing, the district court ordered that stepfather, as joint custodian of B.S.M. at the time he was adjudicated dependent or neglected, was responsible for B.S.M.’s support and therefore was obligated to reimburse DHS for the foster care fees.
On appeal, stepfather contended that the district court erred in requiring him, as B.S.M.’s former stepfather, to reimburse DHS for foster care fees expended on behalf of B.S.M. The Court of Appeals agreed, holding that the trial court erred in relying on CRS § 14-7-102 as a basis to impose responsibility on stepfather. CRS § 19-1-115 imposes an obligation on a “parent” to reimburse costs expended for residential placement of a child. The term “parent” applies to the child’s natural parent or a parent by adoption. Therefore, stepfather had no obligation to reimburse DHS for foster care fees.
The Court rejected DHS’s argument that stepfather was legally obligated to support B.S.M. because he had been granted joint custody of B.S.M. in the Louisiana dissolution proceedings and had never taken action to modify that order. The Louisiana custody order did not impose any support obligation on stepfather, and stepfather had not voluntarily provided any financial support for the child post-dissolution. Further, stepfather effectively terminated his relationship with B.S.M. and had no legal obligation to continue supporting the child. The judgment was reversed.
Rio Grande County Court Judge Michael H. Trujillo on Friday announced his retirement, effective January 2011, becoming the twelfth Colorado judge since June 1 to announce plans to step down from the bench.
The Twelfth District Judicial Nominating Commission plans to convene at 9:00 a.m. on Monday, August 23, to review applications and recommend nominees to fill the vacancy. The meeting will be held at the Rio Grande County Courthouse, 925 Sixth St., in El Norte. Following the interviews, the Commission will recommend finalists for Gov. Bill Ritter to consider for appointment, and the governor will announce his appointee within 15 days.
County court judges receive a provisional, two-year appointment by the governor, after which they are retained by voter approval every four years. Judges in Rio Grande County Court hear a mixed docket of traffic, misdemeanor, infraction, civil (up to $15,000), felony complaints, and small claims (up to $15,000) cases.
The Rio Grande County Court judgeship is a part-time (55 percent) position, for which the annual salary is $67,686.85. Judge Trujillo’s successor will begin his or her term in January 2011.
Registered electors in Rio Grande County who are high school graduates or have attained its equivalence (via a GED) are eligible to apply for the judgeship. Detailed information about the Twelfth Judicial District and the application are available online. Application packages (consisting of one original application plus seven copies) must be received by the office of Commission ex officio chair, Justice Michael L. Bender, 101 W. Colfax Ave., Eighth Floor, no later than Monday, August 9, at 5:00 p.m.
Judge Trujillo first took an oath of office in 1975, when he was appointed Saguache County Court judge. He later was appointed to the Rio Grande bench in August 1991. Judge Trujillo is in private practice in Monte Vista.
The Tenth Circuit on Friday issued two published opinions and three unpublished opinions.
In Muscogee (Creek) Nation v. Oklahoma Tax Commission, the Court affirmed the district court’s decision finding that the searches and seizures conducted by the state highway patrol, under the direction of the Oklahoma Tax Commission, were not unconstitutional. The searches and seizures of unstamped cigarettes were reasonable under the state’s cigarette tax enforcement scheme and were not an affront of Indian sovereignty or a deprivation of due process of law.

References: v. 
 v. 
 § 18
 § 19
 § 14
 § 19
 v.