9 results for 'judge:"Gabriel"'.
[Consolidated.] J .Gabriel finds the lower court erroneously dismissed the homeowners' lawsuits against their insurance companies. Although their insurance claims were untimely, according to the policy language, the courts should have applied the notice-prejudice rule adopted by this court in other insurance disputes. The homeowners' policies and subsequent claims were occurrence policies under which the notice requirements are included only to allow the insurer to investigate the claim and are not fundamental contractual terms. Therefore, the case must be remanded to allow the lower courts to determine whether the homeowners' delays in filing were reasonable. Reversed.
Court: Colorado Supreme Court, Judge: Gabriel, Filed On: March 11, 2024, Case #: 2024CO13, Categories: Civil Procedure, Insurance, Contract
J. Gabriel finds that Colorado's sex offender sentencing scheme allows parole boards to consider a juvenile defendant's maturity, although the statutory language does not require such consideration. The term "progress through treatment" does not necessarily include such a defendant's maturation process, which involves a number of factors that must be applied on a case-by-case basis. However, because "progress through treatment" includes sex offender programs that are, by definition, rehabilitative, parole boards must consider rehabilitation as part of their ultimate decisions regarding juvenile sex offenders.
Court: Colorado Supreme Court, Judge: Gabriel, Filed On: March 11, 2024, Case #: 2024CO14, Categories: Juvenile Law, Parole, Sex Offender
J. Gabriel finds the trial court properly refused to allow defendant to ask each potential juror their race because the question was irrelevant and he was still allowed to ask various questions regarding racial bias, a key issue for his defense at trial. Meanwhile, the trial court properly allowed the prosecution to use back-to-back peremptory challenges to dismiss two black jurors because the jurors' opinions on police and the death penalty gave the court legitimate reasons to excuse them. Affirmed.
Court: Colorado Supreme Court, Judge: Gabriel, Filed On: February 20, 2024, Case #: 2024CO10, Categories: Constitution, Jury
J. Gabriel finds the appeals court erroneously determined all of defendant's pro se appellate claims had been properly preserved. His failure to brief any of the issues following appointment of counsel rendered them abandoned. Additionally, the captain of the ship doctrine allowed defendant's appellant counsel to determine which claims to pursue once he failed to respond to the appeals court's briefing request - with or without his consent - and, therefore, the appeals court improperly reinstated all of the initial claims filed by defendant. Reversed.
Court: Colorado Supreme Court, Judge: Gabriel, Filed On: January 22, 2024, Case #: 2024CO3, Categories: Criminal Procedure, Self Representation
J. Gabriel finds the lower court termination of its jurisdiction over the child welfare case for the county's failure to prosecute precluded it from ruling on the ombudsman's request for production of an unredacted agency report; therefore, the court improperly disclosed the document, especially considering it dealt mainly with accusations of favoritism within the county's board of commissioners and was not relevant to the child welfare case. The ombudsman's request was entirely outside the scope of previous filings in the case and, therefore, did not deal with the court's continuing jurisdiction over already settled matters, which requires the ombudsman to destroy all copies of the report.
Court: Colorado Supreme Court, Judge: Gabriel, Filed On: December 4, 2023, Case #: 2023CO60, Categories: Family Law, Public Record, Jurisdiction
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Gabriel finds the lower court erroneously declined to extend the litigation privilege to attorneys representing a class of employees at a beauty salon. Conditioning privilege on whether attorneys have made sufficient allegations that a class is ascertainable would improperly limit privilege, especially in cases like this, where the attorneys made public statements to sound out class members prior to obtaining business records from the employer. Therefore, because all of the allegedly defamatory statements about the employer's business practices bore some relationship to the suit, they were protected by privilege. Reversed.
Court: Colorado Supreme Court, Judge: Gabriel, Filed On: September 11, 2023, Case #: 2023 CO 47, Categories: Discovery, Privilege, Class Action
J. Gabriel vacates the lower court's ruling on the merits of property tax legislation and its constitutionality. The legislation will not take effect until and unless it is approved by Colorado voters in the 2023 election cycle; therefore, this and all other courts lack jurisdiction to consider whether the legislation complies with the state's single subject requirement.
Court: Colorado Supreme Court, Judge: Gabriel, Filed On: August 21, 2023, Case #: 2023CO45, Categories: Constitution, Elections, Jurisdiction
J. Gabriel finds that the district court improperly classified defendant's first-degree murder charge as a capital offense and denied his request for bail. The charge was filed after the enactment of legislation abolishing the death penalty, and the term "capital offenses" refers to crimes punishable by death, so the application of the capital offense exception to the constitutional right to bail was error. Affirmed.
Court: Colorado Supreme Court, Judge: Gabriel, Filed On: June 20, 2023, Case #: 23SA2, Categories: Death Penalty, Murder, Bail
J. Gabriel finds that the trial court properly convicted defendant of both harassment and stalking. The appeals court erred in concluding that an offense is included in another offense on the basis of a single distinction test. An offense is included in another offense only if it resulted in a less serious injury, lesser culpability or both, and there are no other distinctions. Harassment is not an included offense of stalking because the two crimes are distinct in several ways, so the appeals court conclusion that a single distinction test. Also, the determination of whether the crimes included an act of domestic violence was properly decided by the trial court, as the Sixth Amendment does not entitle a defendant to a jury determination for findings that do not result in a penalty. Reversed in part.
Court: Colorado Supreme Court, Judge: Gabriel, Filed On: June 12, 2023, Case #: 21SC796, Categories: Criminal Procedure, Domestic Violence