Court Opinion

ID: 9535364
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:48:22.817789+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:33:13.558797
License: Public Domain

Judge BRIGGS
specially concurring.
I concur in the analysis and conclusion reached by the majority. I write separately only to note all the parties’ confusion over the supposed requirement of “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” that a legislative enactment is unconstitutional. Contrary to the parties’ apparent understanding, it is not a constitutional standard of review. It is, at most, an ultimate burden of persuasion.
The parties’ confusion is but one example of the difficulties engendered by the insistence of our appellate courts in stating that a party must “prove” a legislative enactment unconstitutional “beyond a reasonable doubt.” As I have previously discussed, these difficulties are avoided by treating this supreme court dicta as conveying no more than our traditional judicial deference, arising out of the doctrine of separation of powers, to a co-equal branch of government. See United Air Lines, Inc. v. City & County of Denver, 978 P.2d 647 (Colo.App.1998)(Briggs, J., concurring).