Colo. judges to analyze revisions to child neglect law | Courts

The Colorado Supreme Court announced on Monday it will decide whether a recent change in state child neglect law requires more than speculation that a parent’s drug use will have future, negative consequences for a newborn.

At least three of the seven members of the court must agree to hear a case on appeal.

The justices also indicated that they might intervene to review two recent judges’ decisions. The first involves a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that changes the way prosecutors must prove prior convictions, and the second concerns the legality of municipal ordinances that punish identical offenses more severely than state law.

Drug use in newborns

Before 2020, a court could declare a child neglected if, among other things, he tested positive at birth for non-prescription controlled substances. That year, however, lawmakers has introduced a new set of criteria. Now a child is neglected if he is ‘born under the influence’ of exposure to alcohol or drugs and his ‘health or well-being is threatened’ by the substance use.

Interpreting that language for the first time in AugustA three-judge panel for the Court of Appeals decided 2-1 that the government must prove more than just the potential that the symptoms of drug exposure will ever manifest.

“We recognize, and do not wish to underestimate, the devastating consequences that can befall a child after exposure to methamphetamine or other substances during pregnancy,” Judge Matthew D. Grove wrote on behalf of himself and Judge Grant T. Sullivan. “Now that the General Assembly has decided that mere exposure is no longer sufficient to justify the trial of a child, we should not substitute our judgment for the Legislature’s policy decision.”

Judge Terry Fox distanced himself from that reading, noting that it would allow parents to use harmful substances during their pregnancy, “but if the child was not born prematurely, did not have immediate, observable growth failure, or did not experience withdrawal symptoms, the child would not be a dependent or neglected child.”

“We absolutely agree with the court’s conclusion,” Heather Thompson, who testified in favor of the 2020 legislation on behalf of the nonprofit Elephant Circle, told Colorado Politics after the panel’s decision. “We believe this was the intent of the law change.”

The government appealed to the state Supreme Court, asking it to review the panel’s interpretation and related conclusion that the evidence was insufficient to establish that an El Paso County child was neglected under the circumstances .

The judges will address these issues.

The thing is People in the interests of BCB

New rule

Colorado’s “three strikes” law, known as the Habitual Criminal Act, requires judges to impose three or four times the maximum sentence if a suspect is convicted and has committed multiple prior crimes. However, the prior convictions must stem from “separate and distinct criminal episodes.”

However, in June the US Supreme Court ruled Erlinger v United Statessentencing juries must decide beyond a reasonable doubt whether a suspect has committed prior crimes under federal customary criminal law on separate occasions.

At the time of the decision, a Mesa County jury had recently convicted Andrew Gregg of two felonies and one misdemeanor. Prosecutors also argued that Gregg should be convicted as a habitual criminal because he had four previous convictions for robbery, but the robberies were not part of the jury’s verdict.

After Erlinger and in anticipation of Gregg’s conviction, the defense decided to dismiss the usual criminal cases because Gregg disputed whether three of his previous convictions came from “separate and separate” episodes. The prosecutor admitted that the Supreme Court’s decision meant that such questions could no longer be decided by judges after the jury’s verdict. But it argued that an “alternative jury” could determine whether Gregg qualified as a habitual criminal.

In a Sept. 9 order, District Court Judge Matthew D. Barrett opined that no further proceedings could proceed based on the usual criminal charges. He invoked the constitutional ban on double jeopardy, reasoning that case law prohibited him from impaneling a jury after the prosecution had already had an opportunity to prove his charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

“While I recognize that the prosecutor did not know at the time of the trial that it was necessary to prove defendant’s habitual crimes to the jury, I am nevertheless obligated to follow applicable law,” Barrett wrote.

The district attorney’s office appealed directly to the state Supreme Court, arguing that the principle of double jeopardy does not apply in Gregg’s scenario.

The Supreme Court ordered Gregg and Barrett to respond to the plaintiff’s request. It also invited the criminal court, the ACLU of Colorado, the state’s attorney general’s office, the attorney general’s office and the state’s public defender to weigh in on their thoughts.

The thing is People vs. Gregg.

Municipal penalties

Finally, the Supreme Court has indicated that it is interested in appealing to the municipal court.

Last year the judges confronted with a scenario involving some of the defendants at Rifle. Two people received a summons for theft under the municipal law. The city’s maximum prison sentence for this crime was 18 times longer than if the defendants had been charged under Colorado’s theft statute.

The defendants asked the Supreme Court to declare Rifle’s code unconstitutional insofar as it punished an identical crime more severely. However, after the judges ordered Rifle to respond, the city government backed down and reluctantly changed the code. The Supreme Court therefore rejected the appeal.

A few months later, Aleah Michelle Camp was charged in Westminster Municipal Court with theft. Compared to the same state offense, she would face a maximum municipal fine nine times higher and a prison sentence 36 times longer than Colorado law imposes.

As in the Rifle case, Camp challenged the legality of the Westminster ordinance. Likewise, the local prosecutor defended the city’s right to punish theft more severely under its inherent authority.

“Theft in Westminster happens in Westminster. Theft in Westminster affects Westminster retailers. When Westminster retailers are affected, they have trouble doing business in Westminster,” the city attorney’s office argued. “So it’s a local concern to address that criminal behavior.”

Judge Rebekah B. Watadah declined to find the ordinance unconstitutional, holding that a locality’s penal system need not conform to that of the state.

Camp appealed to the Supreme Court, The argument is that municipalities undermine the efforts of the legislature to impose statewide uniformity in criminal sentencing and to give officers unquestioned discretion over where to charge suspects.

The Supreme Court ordered a response to Camp’s petition and invited the attorney general’s office, the criminal court and the Colorado Municipal League to weigh in.

The thing is People versus camp.