ࡱ> @ \rbjbjFF ,,@j4444444Hpgpgpg8gLh<H2ii(iiijjj:<<<<<<$R?`4jj`44iiu4i4i::44ii  opg 60ווHH4444ו44jrx)} jjj``HHbeHHeSUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO 9:00 a.m. Oral Argument: Tuesday, December 5, 2006 EN BANC Bailiff: Susan Curtis 06SA106 ( 1 HOUR) CONCERNING THE APPLICATION FOR WATER RIGHTS OF LOGAN WELL USERS, INC. IN LOGAN, MORGAN, WASHINGTON, AND SEDGWICK COUNTIES. Opposers/Appellants: CENTENNIAL WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICT, CITY OF BOULDER; PAWNEE WELL USERS, INC.; LIDDLE DITCH COMPANY; THE HARMONY DITCH COMPANY; and THE NORTH STERLING IRRIGATION DISTRICT, v. Applicant/Appellee: LOGAN WELL USERS, INC., and Opposers/Appellees: HAROLD (HAL) D. SIMPSON, State Engineer; JAMES (JIM) R. HALL, Division Engineer for Water Division 1; CITY OF STERLING; THE HENRYLYN IRRIGATION DISTRICT; IRRIGATIONISTS ASSOCIATION, WATER DISTRICT 1; CITY OF AURORA, acting by and through its Utilities Enterprise; PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF COLORADO d/b/a EXCEL ENERGY; BIJOU IRRIGATION COMPANY; BIJOU IRRIGATION DISTRICT; SOUTH PLATTE DITCH COMPANY; THE FARMERS RESERVOIR AND IRRIGATION COMPANY; TIM COOK; EAST CHERRY CREEK VALLEY WATER & SANITATION DISTRICT; ACCOMASSO BROTHERS; THE UNITED WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICT; PIONEER WATER AND IRRIGATION, INC.; FARMERS PAWNEE CANAL COMPANY; LARRY B. FOILES; DAVE KAUTZ; CHARLIE BARTLETT; GORDON STUMPF; BRYAN DERMER; DOROTHY HELMUT; HOWARD HETTINGER; RUSTY SMITH; RONNIE QUINT; JIM QUINT; CHRIS VANDEMOER; and PARKER WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICT.))))))))))))))))) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )For the Opposers/Appellants, Centennial Water and Sanitation District, City of Boulder and Pawnee Well Users, Inc.: Veronica A. Sperling Brian A. Knutsen Moses, Wittemyer, Harrison and Woodruff, P.C. For the Opposers/Appellants, Liddle Ditch Company, Harmony Ditch Company, and North Sterling Irrigation District: Timothy R. Buchanan Alan E. Curtis Timothy R. Buchanan, P.C. For Opposers/Appellees, Harold (Hal) D. Simpson, State Engineer; and James (Jim) R. Hall, Division Engineer for Water Division 1: John W. Suthers Attorney General Paul L. Benington Assistant Attorney General Alexandra L. Davis Assistant Attorney General Natural Resources and Environment Section Entry of Appearances Only For Opposers/Appellee, City of Aurora: Steven O. Sims John A. Helfrich Brownstein Hyatt & Farber, P.C. Contd on to next page 06SA106 Contd from previous page For Applicant/Appellees, Logan Well Users, Inc.: Kim R. Lawrence Kelly J. Custer Lind, Lawrence & Ottenhoff, LLP  Appeal from the District Court, Water Division 1, 03CW195 Docketed: April 6, 2006 At Issue: October 10, 2006 ISSUE(S): Did the water judge err in refusing to answer the questions of law posed in the Rule 56(h), C.R.C.P., motion regarding how the State Engineer is to administer the plan for augmentation? Does 37-92-305(8), C.R.S., authorize the State Engineer to curtail out-of-priority diversions under a decreed plan for augmentation when the plan is being operated in compliance with all of the terms and conditions of the decree? Does 37-92-305 (8), C.R.S., authorize the State Engineer to allow out-of-priority diversions under a decreed plan for augmentation when the plan is not being operated in compliance with all of the terms and conditions of the decree? ______________________________________________________________________________ Oral Argument: Tuesday, December 5, 2006 10:00 a.m. EN BANC 05SC646 ( 1 HOUR) Petitioner: CARLOS FLETCHER, v. Respondent: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO. )))))))))))))For the Petitioner: Douglas K. Wilson Colorado State Public Defender Tracy C. Renner Deputy State Public Defender For the Respondent: John W. Suthers Attorney General Matthew D. Grove Assistant Attorney General Appellate Division Criminal Justice Section Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 03CA0154 Docketed: October 11, 2005 At Issue: October 17, 2006 ISSUE(S): Whether evidence of an alleged victims virginity in a sexual assault trial is inadmissible character evidence pursuant to C.R.E. 404(a)(2), inadmissible because it is irrelevant pursuant to C.R.E. 402, or unfairly prejudicial pursuant to C.R.E. 403. Whether evidence of an alleged victims virginity constitutes prior sexual conduct, that is presumptively irrelevant and inadmissible under Colorados Rape Shield Statute, section 18-3-407(1), C.R.S. (2005), and whether the proponent of such evidence must comply with the notice and hearing provisions of the statute. ___________________________________ _________________________________________ Oral Argument: Tuesday, December 5, 2006 11:00 a.m. EN BANC 06SA213 ( 1 HOUR) In re: Plaintiffs and Petitioners: THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF SAN MIGUEL, THE COALITION OF CONCERNED SAN MIGUEL COUNTY HOMEOWNERS, HANS (HENSON) JONES, THE WILSON MESA HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, AND PTARMIGAN RANCH OWNERS ASSOCIATION, v. Defendants and Respondents: THE COLORADO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, COMMISSIONER GREGORY E. SOPKIN, COMMISSIONER POLLY PAGE, COMMISSIONER CARL MILLER, FORMER COMMISSIONER JIM DYER, TRI-STATE GENERATION AND TRANSMISSION ASSOCIATION, INC., AND THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF MONTROSE. )))))))))))))))))) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )(Plaintiffs and Petitioners filed combined briefs) For the Plaintiffs and Petitioners, the Board of County Commissioners of the County of San Miguel: Steven J. Zwick Rebekah S. King For the Plaintiffs and Petitioners, The Coalition of the Concerned San Miguel County Homeowners, Hans (Henson) Jones, The Wilson Mesa Homeowners Association, and the Ptarmigan Ranch Owners Association: David S. Neslin Harris D. Sherman Arnold & Porter, LLP For the Defendants and Respondents, Colorado Public Utilities Commision, Commissioner Gregory E. Sopkin, Commissioner Polly Page, Commissioner Carl Miller and Former Commission Jim Dyer: John W. Suthers Attorney General David A. Beckett Assistant Attorney General Business and Licensing Section Original Proceeding, District Court, San Miguel County, 05CV79 Docketed: June 30, 2006 At Issue: September 7, 2006 ISSUE(S): Whether the district courts order requiring the PUC to add the memoranda prepared by its advisors to the record on judicial review, which memoranda were not evidence submitted in the PUCs adjudicatory proceeding, violated the controlling statutes (namely 40-6-113(6) and 40-6-115, C.R.S.) and constitutes an abuse of discretion for which immediate review is appropriate. _____________________________________________________________________________ SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO 9:00 a.m. Oral Argument: Wednesday, December 6, 2006 EN BANC Bailiff: Jason Astle 05SC762 ( 1 HOUR) Petitioner: MIGUEL TRIMBLE, v. Respondent: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO. )))))))))))))For the Petitioner: Eric A. Samler Hollis A. Whitson Samler and Whitson, P.C. For the Respondent: John W. Suthers Attorney General Patricia R. Van Horn Assistant Attorney General Appellate Division Criminal Justice Section Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 03CA0647 Docketed: November 3, 2005 At Issue: October 24, 2006 ISSUE(S): Whether the court of appeals erred in reviewing for plain error petitioners Confrontation Clause issues raised under Crawford v. Washington when the petitioner raised a contemporaneous general hearsay objection, he raised the confrontation issues at the close of the Peoples case, and Crawford had not been issued at the time the hearsay was admitted. Whether an excited utterance made to a police officer investigating a crime by a non-testifying declarant witness can be deemed testimonial hearsay under Crawford v. Washington. ______________________________________________________________________________ Oral Argument: Wednesday, December 6, 2006 10:00 a.m. EN BANC 06SC26 ( 1/2 HOUR) Petitioner: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO, v. Respondent: QUENTIN LOBIN MORENO.)))))))))))))For the Petitioner: John W. Suthers Attorney General Cheryl Hone Assistant Attorney General Appellate Division Criminal Justice Section For the Respondent: Theodore P. McClintock Elizabeth A. McClintock McClintock & McClintock, P.C. Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 04CA0074 Docketed: January 10, 2006 At Issue: September 26, 2006 ISSUE(S): Whether a defendant whose offense traumatizes his victim so badly that she is unable to testify against him at trial thereby forfeits his Sixth Amendment right to confront that witness at trial. _____________________________________________________________________________ Oral Argument: Wednesday, December 6, 2006 10:30 a.m. EN BANC 06SC471 ( 1 HOUR) Petitioners: TRAVERLERS CASUALTY COMPANY OF CONNECTICUT and TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY, v. Respondent: VILLAGE HOMES OF COLORADO, INC., a Colorado corporation.))))))))))))For the Petitioners: Leslie A. Eaton Jon Bernhardt Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll, LLP For the Respondent: Bradley A. Levin Jeremy A. Sitcoff Roberts Levin & Patterson, P.C. Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 04CA1396 Docketed: July 26, 2006 At Issue: November 30, 2006 ISSUE(S): Whether the court of appeals erred in not following the precedent of Browder v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 893 P.2d 132 (Colo. 1995), which holds that coverage under a liability insurance policy is not triggered by a third-party property damage claim against an insured brought by a third-party claimant who acquired the property after the expiration of the insurance policy. Whether the court of appeals erred in determining that coverage is available under a liability insurance policy for third-party claims brought against an insured by third-party claimants who did not suffer any actual harm during the policy period. _____________________________________________________________________________ SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO 9:00 a.m. Oral Argument: Thursday, December 7, 2006 EN BANC Bailiff: Teri Scott 04SA218 ( 2 HOURS) Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee: NATHAN DUNLAP, v. Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO. )))))))))))) ) )For the Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee: Philip A. Cherner and Michael Heher For the Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant: John W. Suthers Attorney General Paul Koehler Appellate Division Criminal Justice Section Appeal from the District Court, Arapahoe County, 93CR2071 Docketed: July 9, 2004 At Issue: September 22, 2006 ISSUE(S): Whether Mr. Dunlap was denied his right to counsel in connection with his trial counsels prior representation of a State witness? Whether defense counsels production of evidence against Mr. Dunlap and his failure to object to that evidence to object to that evidence violated Mr. Dunlaps right to counsel? Whether counsels failure to present available mitigation evidence on the pivotal issue of future dangerousness was ineffective assistance of counsel? Whether counsels incompetent performance prejudiced Mr. Dunlap? Whether the cumulative effect of instances of substandard performance by trial counsel was prejudicial? Whether the 35C courts reliance on evidence of Mr. Dunlaps statements during the State Hospital commitment and the fruits thereof violated numerous of his Constitutional and statutory rights? issues continued on next page 04SA218 issues continued from previous page Whether the 35C courts consideration of evidence of custodial statements of the accused to law enforcement agents was error where the State made no effort to show compliance with Miranda or that the statements were voluntary? Whether the 35C Court erroneously considered jail worker Stuarts testimony? Whether the 35C Courts reliance on improperly-admitted lay opinion testimony of State Hospital nurses and technicians was error? Whether the capital sentencing scheme applied in this case under C.R.S. 16-11-103 violates the Constitutions? Whether the instructions and verdict forms which required that the jurors be convinced and that they must affirmatively find that life imprisonment was the appropriate punishment before voting for a life sentence were erroneous? Whether the burdenless burdens in the capital sentencing process and the instructions which effectively put the burden and risk of non-persuasion on the accused, violated the Constitutions and C.R.S. 16-11-103? Whether retroactive application of the burdenless burdens announced in People v. White, 870 P.2d 424 (Colo. 1994) violated due process? Whether the retroactive application of the capital sentencing scheme announced in People v. Dunlap, 975 P.2d 723 (Colo. 1999) violated the due process and cruel and unusual punishment clauses? Whether Mr. Dunlap was denied effective assistance of counsel by his counsels opening statements at the sentencing trial and trial on the charges? Whether Mr. Dunlap was denied his right to counsel by defense counsels sentencing closing argument, and whether the 35C Courts finding that the arguments were appropriate because the jurors were controlled by powerful emotions shows that Mr. Dunlap was denied due process, a fair trial by impartial jury and his eighth amendment rights? Whether there was evidence to support the finding of the prior conviction aggravating factor? Whether the trial courts sua sponte instruction on six aggravating factors not alleged by the State violated the Constitutions and the Order requiring the State to disclose aggravating factors before trial? Whether the instructions misstatement of the third step of the sentencing process violated C.R.S. 16-13-103 and the constitutions, as did the instruction that there was no presumption of innocence at the eligibility stage? issues continued on next page 04SA218 issues continued from previous page Whether the District Attorney should have been disqualified, the death sentence should have been vacated, and the stolen records and the testimony of the States Complicitor should have been suppressed, due to the District Attorneys theft of Mr. Dunlaps medical records? Whether the trial court erroneously excused jurors due to supposed opposition to the death penalty, and whether it applied incorrect legal standards and inquiries in doing so? Whether Mr. Dunlap was denied a fair trial by impartial jury by the denial of challenges for cause, and whether he was denied his right to counsel by trial counsels failure to exhaust peremptory challenges and failure to excuse four jurors who had been challenged for cause? Whether the conviction of attempted felony murder was void since there is no such crime, and whether the sentencers consideration of the non-existent offense violated the Constitutions? Whether the trial courts refusal to inquire of the jurors after learning that alternate jurors had emotionally congratulated the jurors on the guilty verdicts, complete with hugs, and that the jurors and alternates had discussed the case after the verdicts, and that the jury had discussed the Burger King case before deliberations, violated Harper v. People, 817 P.2d 77 (Colo. 1991) and the Constitutions? Whether allowing the State to present false testimony in order to bolster the credibility of an important witness, and refusing to allow Mr. Dunlap to cross-examine the witness on important aspects of his testimony, violated the Constitutions? Whether the jury instructions at the guilt/innocence phase were erroneous in ways that directly impacted the death sentence? Whether defense counsels stipulation to gang affiliation evidence and raising of the gear gang incident were ineffective assistance of counsel? Cross Appeal Issues: Whether defendants who make postconviction attacks and then appeal the rejection of those attacks face substantial burdens. Whether defendants who attack the effectiveness of their trial counsel face high burdens, especially in connection with attacks on counsels strategic and tactical decision making. Whether Mr. Lewis did not represent Dunlap under the influence of a conflict of interest (Dunlaps Arguments 1 and 2). Whether counsel was not ineffective for deciding not to present evidence about the security features at the Colorado State Penitentiary (Dunlaps Argument 3). issues continued on next page 04SA218 issues continued from previous page Whether the trial court erred in determining that Mr. Lewis made deficient strategic decisions concerning the investigation and presentation of penalty phase evidence about Dunlaps mental state. However, the record does support its findings that Dunlap suffered no prejudice because of that performance (Peoples Cross-Appeal Argument 1; Dunlaps Arguments 4 and 5). A. Defense counsel was faced with substantial evidence that Dunlap malingered and committed other bad acts while undergoing a competency evaluation at the state hospital. B. The trial court found that defense counsel provided Dunlap with deficient performance concerning the investigation and presentation of double-edged penalty phase mitigation evidence about Dunlaps mental health. C. The trial courts findings of fact about the double-edged nature of Dunlaps alleged mitigation evidence, and the breadth of the mitigation investigation conducted, negate its deficient performance conclusion (Peoples Cross-Appeal Argument 1). D. The trial courts no-prejudice finding is supported by its findings of fact and the correct legal standards. Whether the trial court erred in determining that Mr. Lewis decision not to object to a single sentence of the prosecutions closing argument constituted deficient performance (Peoples Cross-Appeal Argument 2). Whether the statements Dunlap made during his state hospital competency evaluation, and his actions there, were not involuntary. The trial court properly considered them at the postconviction hearing because the claims Dunlap madeand his own experts testimonyopened the door to them (Dunlaps Arguments 6, 7, and 8). Whether the trial court did not abuse it discretion in considering evidence from the state hospital staff members who testified as lay witnesses about their observations of Dunlaps behavior, and their opinions of that behavior based on comparisons with the behavior of other state hospital patients (Dunlaps Argument 9). Whether Dunlaps attack on 16-11-103, C.R.S. (1993 Supp.), is successive (Dunlaps 10). Whether penalty phase jury instructions 14 and 24 did not require the jury to find that life was the appropriate sentence for Dunlaps crimes before it could impose that sentence. The verdict form said nothing improper by using the phrase appropriate punishment in referring to the jurys sentencing decision (Dunlaps Argument 11). Whether the trial court correctly did not give presumption of life instructions. Neither this courts decision in People v. White, nor Colorados capital sentencing procedures which impose no burden of proof in steps three and four of the sentencing process, violate ex post facto or due process (Dunlaps Arguments 12 and 13). issues continued on next page 04SA218 issues continued from previous page Whether this courts decision in Dunlap I did not violate due process or ex post facto (Dunlaps Argument 14). Whether trial counsels guilt and penalty phase opening statements were not ineffective (Dunlaps Argument 15). Whether Mr. Lewis was not ineffective in his penalty phase closing argument (Dunlaps Argument 16). Whether sufficient evidence supports the jurys penalty phase aggravating factor finding that Dunlap had a prior felony conviction for a class 2 felony (Dunlaps Argument 17). Whether the trial court did not instruct the jury on aggravating factors not alleged by the prosecution (Dunlaps Argument 18). Whether the instructions and verdict forms adequately informed the jury of its penalty phase step three decision (Dunlaps Argument 19). Whether the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Dunlaps motion to recuse the prosecution from the postconviction proceedings (Dunlaps Argument 20). Whether the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting prosecution challenges for cause (Dunlaps Argument 21). A. Defendants face substantial burdens when they attack trial court rulings that granted prosecution challenges for cause. B. The trial court did not mislead the venire during the jury selection process on the standards for sentencing a defendant to death. C. The trial court devised and employed extensive procedures for the jury selection process that were fair to both parties. D. The appellate record supports the trial courts exclusion of jurors because of beliefs they held opposing the death penalty. 1. Prospective juror M. 2. Prospective juror S. 3. Prospective juror E. 4. Prospective juror D. 5. Prospective juror T. 6. Prospective juror M. 7. Prospective juror H. 8. Prospective juror J. 9. Prospective juror A. 10. Prospective juror G. issues continued on next page 04SA218 issues continued from previous page Whether Dunlaps complaints concerning the trial courts denial of his challenges for cause are waived. The defense team was not ineffective in its jury selection representation of Dunlap. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defense challenges for cause (Dunlaps Argument 22). A. Dunlaps complaints are waived because the defense team was satisfied with the jury chosen and did not need to exercise all of its available peremptory challenges. B. Dunlap must demonstrate more than five erroneous denials of challenges for cause before he can deserve a new trial. C. Defendants face substantial burdens when they attack trial court denials of their challenges for cause. D. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defense challenges for cause. 1. Juror C. 2. Alternate juror M. 3. Alternate juror P. 4. Prospective juror H. 5. Prospective juror W. 6. Prospective juror M. 7. Prospective juror McC. 8. Prospective juror L. 9. Prospective juror S. 10. Prospective juror W. Whether a void conviction was not used to sentence Dunlap to death (Dunlaps Argument 23). Whether the trial court fully and appropriately addressed the juror misconduct issue (Dunlaps Argument 24). Whether Dunlaps complaint concerning Carl Wilsons polygraph test results is successive (Dunlaps Argument 25). Whether none of Dunlaps guilt phase instruction challenges reflect error, let alone plain error (Dunlaps Argument 26). A. Guilt phase instruction 1. B. Guilt phase instructions 2 and 13. Whether defense counsel was not ineffective for stipulating to the admission of evidence about Dunlaps involvement in gang-related activity (Dunlaps Argument 27). ______________________________________________________________________________ Oral Argument: Thursday, December 7, 2006 11:00 a.m. EN BANC 06SA211 ( 1/2 HOUR) In re: Plaintiffs: PASCUAL HERNANDEZ; GLORIA SMITH; JANET HERNANDEZ; MIKE HERNANDEZ; ANTHONY HERNANDEZ; RALPH HERNANDEZ; ANNETTE TERRONES and CHRIS CAULDWELL, v. Defendants: SAMUEL W. DOWNING, IV, M.D. and PARKVIEW MEDICAL CENTER.)))))))))))))))) )For the Petitioners: Brad R. Irwin Chris L. Ingold Asher M.B. Ritmiller Irwin & Boesen, P.C. For the Respondent Parkview Medical Center: Barbara H. Glogiewicz Ronald H. Nemirow Kennedy Childs & Fogg, P.C. Original Proceeding, District Court, Prowers County, 05CV64 Docketed: June 28, 2006 At Issue: September 25, 2006 ISSUE(S): Whether the special procedures created by the Colorado Wrongful Death Statute supersede the Rules of Civil Procedure and prevent severance of claims based on a change of venue. Whether an analysis of joinder should precede an analysis of venue when the facts of the case interrelate the defendants. ______________________________________________________________________________ SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO 8:45 a.m. Oral Argument: Monday, December 11, 2006 EN BANC Bailiff: Judd Choate Courts in the Community Gateway High School Aurora, Colorado 05SC816 ( 1 HOUR) Petitioners: DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OF THE STATE OF COLORADO, and REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT, a political subdivision of the State of Colorado, v. Respondent: MARILYN HICKEY MINISTRIES d/b/a HAPPY CHURCH. )))))))))))))))For the Petitioner: Robert R. Duncan Donald M. Ostrander James Birch (Special Counsel) Duncan, Ostrander & Dingess, P.C. For CDOT Only: John W. Suthers Attorney General Office of the Attorney General For the Respondent: Leslie A. Fields John R. Sperber Faegre & Benson, LLP Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 04CA0928 Docketed: November 18, 2005 At Issue: August 15, 2006 ISSUE(S): Whether the court of appeals erred in ruling that the landowner in this case, whose property is being taken by eminent domain for a State transportation project, has a cognizable right to damages for the impairment of passing motorists view of the landowners property. ______________________________________________________________________________ Oral Argument: Monday, December 11, 2006 10:25 a.m. EN BANC 06SC21 ( 1 HOUR) Petitioner: GLENN TURBYNE, v. Respondent: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO. ))))))))))))) )For the Petitioner: Shawn Gillum William W. Hood, III Blain D. Myhre Isaacson Rosenbaum, P.C. For the Respondent: Carol Chambers Arapahoe County District Attorney Paul Wolff Chief Deputy District Attorney Jacob Edson Deputy District Attorney Certiorari to the District Court, Arapahoe County, 05CV3705 Docketed: January 6, 2006 At Issue: September 6, 2006 ISSUE(S): Whether the district court erred when it reversed the county court and ruled that good cause for noncompliance with a drivers request for a blood test under the Express Consent Law means a factual situation that the officer did not create, rather than the law enforcement system as a whole. Whether the district court erred when it engaged in a de novo review of the operative facts to find an exceptional circumstance that it concluded amounted to good cause for noncompliance with petitioners request for a blood test and Colorados Express Consent Law. ______________________________________________________________________________ PAGE 1 PAGE 4 VYZ[]^_`cqrs& ' 8 9 n w x ; N n ĻģĻĵĵĵĖtttth2h25CJ^JaJh@EuCJ^JaJhvCJ^JaJh2h2CJ^JaJhVEkhCJhVEkh 8CJ hVEkCJhVEkhCCJhVEkhdCJhVEkhd&CJhVEkhCB*phhVEkB*phhVEkh)B*phhVEkhdB*ph)cn o 6 7 : ; O P h i m n  0<$*$If^<gd2 0$*$Ifgd2 &d P @r[r   $If 0<$*$If^<gd, .12:Mklm-.Wty}Ӛ͚Ӯ}}wn}wdh -h25CJhS5>*CJ hSCJ hS5CJ hd!CJ h25CJhVEkhD+CJ hD+CJ hd!5CJ hD+5CJhVEkhd5CJhVEkh2CJ h,CJ h2CJ hdCJhVEkhdCJh,hdCJ^JaJh2h2CJ^JaJh.iCJ^JaJ% "$(*,.2m.>Oa| $If^gdD+ $If^$If%6VWuvwxy ) $If^gd,$  $Ifa$gd2 $If^gdS $If^)*-]^fr7 !̼{̊rrr̄̄hVEkhCCJhVEkhVEkCJ hVEkCJhVEkhCJhVEkhd&CJh2JhdCJaJhdhdCJaJhVEkhd>*CJhVEkhp|>*CJ hdCJhVEkhdCJh2h,CJ h,5CJ h,CJh -h25CJh -h,5CJ))*+,-hbcKL*$gd/ # @*$gd/Xkd$$IflFZ$Zh:    4 lal  $Ifgd,L7    !-.?@CDPQvw$If 0$*$Ifgdd &d P gd/*$gd/!-DQvw  \kl<`bý϶ٽ٭ߣ~uo hVEkCJhVEkhd&CJhVEkh/CJ h ->*CJh/h/CJaJhVEkhd>*CJhVEkhp|>*CJhdh/CJ hd5CJ hdCJ hdCJ hdBCJhVEkhd5CJ h/CJhVEkhdCJhdhdCJaJhdhd5CJaJ) ->YlXkdz$$IflFZ$Zh:    4 lal $If^= &d P gd/"#,4R4Qfxyz$%&EFGNɻɻ赯xqkex h@CJ h`ArCJ hd5CJ h@5CJ h/5CJ h`Ar5CJhVEkhd5CJhuhuCJhVEkhCJ hCJ hdCJ huCJh/h/5CJ^JaJh/h/CJ^JaJhVEkh)CJhVEkh4]CJhVEkhdCJ hVEkCJhVEkhVEkCJ&+,45QR/034PQgz|~$If 0$*$Ifgd/&6FG!3HI  % 6 Q p $If^gd`Ar $If^N]GIP_j  o p s !! ! !!!l"""###,#⻲⨞zsjahVEkhd&CJhVEkh4]CJ hVEkhdhVEkhb>*CJh@EuCJaJh`(h`(CJaJ hd>*CJhVEkhd>*CJhVEkhp|>*CJhVEkh`(CJ h`(CJh@h@CJ hd5CJ h`Ar5CJhVEkhd5CJhVEkhdCJ h@CJ h@5CJ hu5CJ&p q r s l""#Z#o#p# &d P gdbgd`(]kd$$IflFZ$Zh(    4 lal,#-#B#D#G#H#c#n#r#y#}#~######### $ $$$+$,$7$:$M$N$$$$%%%(%9%<%D%F%G%O%%%ǥ}qhT dhT d>*CJaJhT dhT dCJ^JaJ hd>*CJhVEkhd>*CJhVEkhp|>*CJ hd5CJ hCJhT dhT dCJ hdCJ hT dCJhVEkhd5CJhT dhT dCJaJhT dhT d5CJaJhVEkh 8CJ h)&vCJhVEkhdCJ,p#q############### $$8$9$:$N$^$o$$$ $If^$If 0$*$IfgdT d$$$$$$%%:%;%<%F%G%&&h' 0p@ #*$gdT dXkdn$$IflFZ$Zh:    4 lal $If^%f&n&&&O'e'g''''''''(9(?(C(F(O([(((((((((((Һyqyyqg`Z h]CJ hd5CJhVEkhd5CJh]CJaJh]h]CJaJh]h]5CJaJhVEkh4]CJhVEkh)&vCJ h)&vCJhVEkhdCJhVEkhd&CJhVEkhd>*CJhT dhT d>*CJ^JaJhT dhT dCJ^JaJhUCJ^JaJhT dhT d>*CJaJhT dhT dCJaJh''''(6(7(8(N(O([(\((((((((((($If $Ifgd] 0$*$If`gd] 0$*$Ifgd] &d P ((((()()A)B)C)W)n)))))))Xkd$$IflFZ$Zh:    4 lal $If^(())')()@)A)C)V)W))))))))****!*"**3+:+H+I+^+c+d+y++++++++7,D,|,蔋vkvkhShSCJaJhShS5CJaJhVEkh4]CJhVEkh)&vCJ h)&vCJhVEkhd&CJh]h]CJ^JaJ hd>*CJhVEkhd>*CJhVEkhp|>*CJ hCJ hd5CJhVEkhd5CJ hdCJhVEkhdCJ h]CJh]h]CJ*))***!*"**3+4+5+6+7+8+9+++++++++2,3, 0$*$IfgdS &d P  0 Z*$]Zgd]3,6,7,C,D,},,,,,,,,,,, --?- $If^gd@Eu $If^$If 0$*$Ifgdkz 0$*$IfgdS|,},,,,,,,,,,,,,,-->-?-o-w---------.//'0(0v000ſŹŲũ쟕wlb\ h)&vCJhVEkh@Eu>*CJhkzhkzCJaJhkzhkz5>*OJQJaJhkzhkz5OJQJaJhVEkhd>*CJhVEkhp|>*CJhkzhkzCJ hkz;CJ h@EuCJ hSCJ hkzCJ hd5CJ h.i5CJhVEkhd5CJhVEkhkzCJhVEkhdCJhkzhdCJaJ#?-@-A-B-x------- .//0/  $ !#$gdkz $ $a$gdw"8 $ a$gdkzXkdb$$IflFZ$Zh:    4 lal 0/(0v0w0x0y0z0{0|0}0~000(1<1=1>1T1U1y1z11111 0$*$Ifgdj &d P gd@Eu $gdkz00000000011 1 111;1>1F1J1K1Q1R1U1h1w1y1111111111111112222ĻİĻİ蠚xq hd5CJhvo5CJaJhVEkhd5CJhVEkhvCJ hvCJ hvoCJ hdCJ haCJhjhjhjCJaJhw"85CJaJhjhj5CJaJ h\_CJhVEkh 8CJhVEkhd&CJhVEkhdCJ h)&vCJhVEkh4]CJ*111111112(2,2:2;2<2h2x22222 $If^gdj $If^$If 0$*$Ifgdj2(2+2,292<2D2V2f2g2h222222222 33!3,3.34373?3A3B3666667ؼ⣙{pb{hfUhfU5CJPJaJhfU5CJPJaJhfUCJPJaJhw"8haCJPJaJ hd>*CJhVEkhd>*CJhVEkhp|>*CJhahaCJ haCJ hd5CJhvo5CJaJhjhj5CJaJhVEkhd5CJhVEkhdCJhjhvCJ hvCJ hjCJ"222233536373A3B333x4y455R5 0 *$gdw"8Xkd$$IflFZ$Zh:    4 lalR5S555~666666667777888899::@;A;<$ 0 *$a$gdfU 0 *$gdw"877==?@@ @'@(@L@M@GGGGGH$HHHJIQIRISIIIǼDZǣ擇xfxfxfxTxfEhw"8OJQJaJmHnHu#hw"8h*HOJQJaJmHnHu#hw"8haOJQJaJmHnHuh*HOJQJaJmHnHuhw"8ha5CJaJhw"8ha5CJOJQJaJhfUhfU5CJPJaJh,x5CJPJaJh*H5CJPJaJhfU5CJPJaJhfUCJPJaJhfCJPJaJhw"8haCJPJaJhw"8hfUCJPJaJ<<<<==L>M>??@@@ @(@L@M@N@_A`ABB%C&CCCE$ 0 *$a$gdfU 0 *$gdw"8EEtFuFFFGGGGGHHHHIIJIIII $]^`gdw"8 $]^`gdw"8 @ X gdw"8 !gdw"8 0 *$gdw"8II J5J6J8J?J@JAJ+N{NNNNNsOtO}OPPPPQRRXR_R`RaRSSSS!T𻩻wgZh*HOJQJmHnHuhw"8h*HOJQJmHnHuhw"8hw"8OJQJmHnHuhw"8haOJQJmHnHu#hw"8haOJQJaJmHnHu#hw"8h*HOJQJaJmHnHuh*HOJQJaJmHnHuhfUhfU5CJaJhfU5CJaJ hfU5OJQJaJmHnHuhfUOJQJaJmHnHu!I JJ6J7J8JKVL0M+NNNsO $]^`gdw"8 $]^`gdw"8  $]gdvo  $]gd*H  $]gdw"8 $]^`gdw"8$a$gdfU$ $]^`a$gdfU sOtOPPQQWRXRSSTTUUUU"UFUGUHUUU)V*VV$a$gdfU $]^`gdw"8 $]^`gdw"8!T0TTTUUUGUHUOUPUQUiUqUUUUU*V1V2VVVVVAWHWIWJWWWWWNXUXVXWXXXXXYYY¹¤ڕڕڕڕڕڕڕo&hw"8haOJQJ\aJmHnHu#hw"8h*HOJQJaJmHnHuh*HOJQJaJmHnHuhfUhfU5CJaJhf5CJaJh*H5CJaJhfU5CJaJhaOJQJaJmHnHu#hw"8haOJQJaJmHnHu&hw"8ha>*OJQJaJmHnHu+VV@WAWWWMXNXXXqYYtZZr[[[[[[\!\ $p]^p`gdw"8  $]gdw"8 $]^`gdw"8 $]^`gdw"8YrZn\p\\\\\\\\]]`````aa#a$a%aaaaabbbbbbb˺ˍ{gVڍ{ڍ{ڍ{ڍ{ h*HOJQJ\aJmHnHu&hw"8h*HOJQJ\aJmHnHu#hw"8h*HOJQJaJmHnHuh*HOJQJaJmHnHuhfUhfU5CJaJhfU5CJaJh*H5CJaJ hfU5OJQJaJmHnHuhfUOJQJaJmHnHu#hw"8haOJQJaJmHnHu&hw"8haOJQJ\aJmHnHu!!\:\S\m\n\o\p\\\\\\\\]^ _w_  $]gdw"8$a$gdfU$ $]^`a$gdfU $]^`gdw"8 $]^`gdw"8 $p]^p`gdw"8w____ `%`>`W`r`````aaaaaaxb $]^`gdw"8 $]^`gdw"8 $p]^p`gdw"8  $]gdw"8xbbbbeccccccd3d4d5dLdMdUdVdbdcd 0$*$Ifgdvo &d P  $]^`gdw"8 $]^`gdw"8 $]^`gdw"8beccccccccccccc6d=dAdDdMdUdcdde:e;eKeLeMeNe`eaebecepeqeeeeĻIJڧڕvovii`ihVEkhvoCJ hvoCJ h.i5CJhVEkhd5CJhVEkh_VCJ h_VCJ hdCJ h.iCJhvohvo5CJaJhvohvoCJaJhVEkh4]CJhVEkhu}CJ hu}CJhVEkhd&CJ hVEkhdhVEkhdCJhVEkhd>*CJ#hw"8haOJQJaJmHnHu%cdddddee;eLeNeceqeeeeeeeeeeeeef"f $If^$If $Ifgdvo 0$*$Ifgdvoeeeeeeeee!f"f%f`fkfxfyfffffffggh$h%h-hhhi i!i{wsh_Y_R h=5CJ h=CJh<h=CJh<h=B*phh=hd hVEkhdhYhY5CJaJhYhYCJaJ hd>*CJhVEkhd>*CJhVEkhp|>*CJhVEkhYCJ hYCJh<h<CJ h<CJ hd5CJ hU5CJhVEkhd5CJ h<5CJ hvoCJhVEkhdCJ "f#f$f%fafyffffffTgUggh~ @ X gdY  *$`gdY  *$gdYXkdV$$IflFZ$Zh:    4 lalhh h!h"h#h$h%h&h'h(h)h*h+h,h-hhhii i!i5iFiGiHi$a$gd= &d P gd=gd=gd=!iEiGi]i^i`imijj=jNjajjjjjk,kkkkklAmmmmn)n7n9n:nMnjnnnn.o/o0o2ooooq1r9r:rϱ汝 hVEkh=h[h=>*CJaJh[h=CJaJh<h=CJaJh h=CJh<h=>*CJhBh=5CJh<h=5CJh<h=CJaJh<h=5CJaJh<h=CJ h=CJh\2h=5CJ/HiIi_i`iminiiijjjj=j>jNjbjsjjjjjjjj $If^gd= $Ifgd= 0$*$Ifgd=gd=$a$gd=jkk,k=kMkbkckdkekkkkkkkkgd=Xkd$$IflFZ$Zh:    4 lal $If^gd=klm?m@mmmmmmmmmmmmmnn)n*n $Ifgd= 0$*$Ifgd= &d P gd=gd= 0p@ #*$gd=*n8n:nNn[nqnnnnnnnnn oo/o $If^gd= $Ifgd=/o0o3o4opoooooooppq1r2r3r 0]^0gd=]gd=gd=XkdJ$$IflFZ$Zh:    4 lal3r4r5r6r7r8r9r:r;rr?r@rArGrHrIrJrKrMrNrTrUrVrWrXrZr[r\rںŶhbhb0JmHnHuhh0JmHnHu h0Jjh0JU hVEkh) hVEkh\{ hVEkhu} hVEkhd/ =!"#&$&%x$$Ifl!vh5Z5h5:#vZ#vh#v::V l5Z5h5:4alx$$Ifl!vh5Z5h5:#vZ#vh#v::V l5Z5h5:4alx$$Ifl!vh5Z5h5(#vZ#vh#v(:V l5Z5h5(4alx$$Ifl!vh5Z5h5:#vZ#vh#v::V l5Z5h5:4alx$$Ifl!vh5Z5h5:#vZ#vh#v::V l5Z5h5:4alx$$Ifl!vh5Z5h5:#vZ#vh#v::V l5Z5h5:4alx$$Ifl!vh5Z5h5:#vZ#vh#v::V l5Z5h5:4alx$$Ifl!vh5Z5h5:#vZ#vh#v::V l5Z5h5:4alx$$Ifl!vh5Z5h5:#vZ#vh#v::V l5Z5h5:4alx$$Ifl!vh5Z5h5:#vZ#vh#v::V l5Z5h5:4al8@8 Normal_HmH sH tH X@X kz Heading 1$$ $*$@&a$5CJOJQJDA@D Default Paragraph FontVi@V  Table Normal :V 44 la (k@(No List >B@> Body Text  ZB*CJ4 @4 Footer  !.)@. Page NumberV@V aTOC 2% $ 0*$]^`0 CJOJQJV@V aTOC 3% $ p0*$]^p`0 CJOJQJV@V aTOC 4% $ @ 0*$]^@ `0 CJOJQJ\jcno67:;OPhimn   "$(*,.2m.>Oa| % 6 V W u v w x y ) * + , - h b c K L 7    !-.?@CDPQvw ->Yl=+,45QR/034PQgz|~&6FG!3HI%6QpqrslZopq 89:N^o:;<FGh 6 7 8 N O [ \ !(!A!B!C!W!n!!!!!!!!"""!""""3#4#5#6#7#8#9#########2$3$6$7$C$D$}$$$$$$$$$$$ %%?%@%A%B%x%%%%%%% &/'0'((v(w(x(y(z({(|(}(~(((()<)=)>)T)U)y)z))))))))))))*(*,*:*;*<*h*x********++5+6+7+A+B+++x,y,--R-S---~........////00001122@3A3444455L6M677888 8(8L8M8N8_9`9::%;&;;;==t>u>>>?????@@@@IAJAAAA BB6B7B8BCVD0E+FFFsGtGHHIIWJXJKKLLMMMM"MFMGMHMMM)N*NNN@OAOOOMPNPPPqQQtRRrSSSSSST!T:TSTmTnToTpTTTTTTTTUV WwWWWW X%X>XWXrXXXXXYYYYYYxZZZZe[[[[[[\3\4\5\L\M\U\V\b\c\\\\\]];]L]N]c]q]]]]]]]]]]]]]^"^#^$^%^a^y^^^^^^T_U__`` `!`"`#`$`%`&`'`(`)`*`+`,`-```aa a!a5aFaGaHaIa_a`amanaaabbbb=b>bNbbbsbbbbbbbbcc,c=cMcbcccdceccccccccde?e@eeeeeeeeeeeeeff)f*f8f:fNf[fqfffffffff gg/g0g3g4gpggggggghhi1j2j3j4j5j6j7j8j9j:j;j000LY  @0 @0@0^~00 ^~00^~00@0@0@0LY0 }  !N,#%(|,027I!TYbe!i:r\r:>ADGJLORUXZ]`ceiknu )Lp p#$h'()3,?-0/12R5<EIsOV!\w_xbcd"fhHijk*n/o3r\r;=?@BCEFHIKMNPQSTVWY[\^_abdfghjlmopqrst[r< !t!t8@0(  B S  ?\j((|((L((<(g((($(4(((((((|.(g(\(((t(T(<"((̧(D(D"((#((#(((8(T9(t!(t(4!(M(t(r(B(4(\>(4(,Z( ("(̢("(D(D(\ (4(?(l((ĺ(|(/(4"(t@((,((($D( ((N(|(M(l_!((((tN((l(<"($$((\(G(lL($( (a (u(|((^(7((t((,(X(((to(|"(T}( ((<(<((lo((($(ě(l(|"(9((($N"(((4((#(D#(($("("(ܴ(((((f (, ( (L/ (/ (($(K"(L"(H(?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ\[]^_a`bcdefghijmklnropqsutvwxyz{|~} bAAIUUcll   tt$$uuH9s   !!!"d##$$o$o$\%\%%%&&((( )))***+4+V0_0_0#3#333a=a=[\*]2]9]9]]]]]]Q^X^X^x^^M`M```(a4a4a;aEaEaaacccciee'f'f^gegegggii]j   !#"$&%')*(+,-/0.123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ\[]^_a`bcdefghijlmknpqrosutvwxyz{|~} _@*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagscountry-regionhttp://www.5iantlavalamp.com/(jurn:schemas:contacts middlename kurn:schemas:contactsSn8*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagstimeVV*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PersonNamehttp://www.microsoft.com8*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsdateZ*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceNamehttp://www.5iantlavalamp.com/Z*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceTypehttp://www.5iantlavalamp.com/i*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsState0http://www.5iamas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsh*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsCity0http://www.5iamas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsV*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsplacehttp://www.5iantlavalamp.com/ 01101112151718200420052006222425262833044556789DayHourMinuteMonthYear       kjkkjk      V      @              owEMn:B 6=W` - 5  # 056=   %V] $$$$%%%&o)w))) ** *'*4*9*N*V*p*w*1122g6j6k6q688;;z]]]]]]]]]^^^l_s_bbbbEcLcMcScTfZfzffgg@jZj]jb78  @A!01r|9 B """##3$4$%&((?)I)))....1288(8.8m;o;G=~=:?A?BBLL"M(MTT6\@\\\__-``JaTaaab(beeeeghhi@jZj]j3333333333333333333333333333333333333333333389  l$$$$((v(55AAMMYZZZ$`9j?j@jJjMjWj]j@jZj]jGFUvod&dd!X%`(|c(D+g,2w"8<dB I2JjX#[h[4]I^\_T d.fVEk`Aru@Eu)&vtZv\{p|u}aY @=vS,xkzdS-d*H2{ -.i) afbfU 8_Vj/fu, @}m]CN2* + !w+,gpqN O !!##}$$?%@%T)U)))**L\M\;]N]"^#^$`_a`a>bNbbcccee*f:f/g0g=j?j]j/@@@@@@@i0i0i0i0@4>C\j0@UnknownGz Times New Roman5Symbol3& z Arial?5 z Courier New;|i0Batang"qh&FFeZ6eZ6!24d j j3qH(?d SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADOCourtsVictoria CisnerosOh+'0 ,8 T ` l x!SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADOicrUPRCourts ourourNormal Victoria CisnerosTE3ctMicrosoft Word 10.0@Ik@T@i@TeZ՜.+,0 hp  Colo Judicial Dept6 j: !SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO Title  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvxyz{|}~Root Entry F5pData w1TableוWordDocumentSummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8CompObjj  FMicrosoft Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q