The Colorado Court of Appeals released three opinions today. Below are the summaries of each with a link to the entire opinion.
The People of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Danny Marceleno, Defendant-Appellant. 2026 COA 40. A division of the court of appeals examines whether section 18-1.3-603(8), C.R.S. 2025 — which limits restitution when a victim’s loss is covered by insurance — applies to the defendant’s convictions. The defendant contends that the district court was obligated under subsections (8)(b) and (8)(c) to determine whether the damaged car was covered by insurance before ordering restitution and asserts that the court improperly shifted the burden to the defense to present evidence on this issue.
Interpreting section 18-1.3-603(8) as a whole and giving all its provisions consistent, harmonious, and sensible effect, the division concludes that the limitation in subsection (8)(a) — restricting application to non-felony convictions under title 42 — applies to all of section 18-1.3-603(8). Accordingly, the division disagrees with the dicta in People v. Lockett, 2025 COA 1, ¶ 18, that “subsection (8)(a) pertains only to title 42 non-felony offenses, whereas subsection (8)(c) pertains to all types of offenses.” Because none of the defendant’s convictions fall under title 42, section 18-1.3-603(8) does not apply in this case. And because the division rejects the defendant’s remaining arguments, it affirms the
restitution order. Read the opinion.
The People of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. J.P., Defendant-Appellant. 2026 COA 41. A court shall order a defendant’s criminal justice records sealed when the defendant is “acquitted of all counts in the case.” § 24-72-705(1)(a)(II), C.R.S. 2025. A division of the court of appeals holds that a defendant who is found not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) is eligible for record sealing under the statute because an NGRI judgment operates as an acquittal of the charged offenses. Accordingly, the division reverses the district court’s orders denying the defendant’s requests to seal his criminal justice records and remands the case to the district court to seal his records. Read the opinion.
Shia Brooks, for herself and as Common law Spouse and heir to the Estate of
Gavin Tweed, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. City and County of Denver, Denver Health and Hospital Authority, et al., Defendants-Appellees. 2026 COA 42. A division of the court of appeals considers what legal standard applies when a plaintiff seeks damages under section 13- 21-131, C.R.S. 2025, for a violation of Colorado’s due process clause based on a jail suicide. After examining analogous federal law, the division holds that a plaintiff asserting such a claim must show that the jailer or their supervisor acted with deliberate indifference. Applying that standard, the division concludes that plaintiff failed to allege sufficient facts demonstrating that any defendant acted with deliberate indifference.
The division also addresses, for the first time in a published Colorado opinion, the scope of a jailer’s duty to protect a detainee from self-harm while in custody. Based on established tort principles under Colorado law and decisions in other jurisdictions, the division concludes that a jailer has a duty to protect a detainee from self-inflicted injury or death only if the risk of such harm is reasonably foreseeable. Because plaintiff’s allegations didn’t satisfy this standard, the division affirms the dismissal of her wrongful death claim. The division also addresses and rejects plaintiff’s other contentions and therefore affirms the district court’s dismissal of the amended complaint. Read the opinion.