The Colorado Court of Appeals issued three opinions on September 17, 2026. Read the summaries or link to the entire opinion, below.
The People of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Scott Edward Chilleen, Defendant-Appellant. 2026 COA 69. This case involves a defendant’s motion to bifurcate the charge of felony driving under the influence (DUI), which requires proof of prior DUI convictions, from other charged offenses. A division of the court of appeals considers two interrelated issues: whether a trial court abuses its discretion by denying a pretrial motion to bifurcate and whether subsequent prejudice during trial warrants reversal.
The division concludes that the court properly exercised its discretion not to bifurcate before trial and that events during trial did not render that decision improper. Nevertheless, the division also concludes that when the prosecution attempts to use prior conviction evidence for an improper purpose (such as to show propensity), a limiting instruction is insufficient on its own to guard against unfair prejudice. Instead, when a trial court chooses to deny a pretrial motion to bifurcate the charge of felony DUI, it must carefully safeguard the trial to ensure that evidence of the defendant’s prior convictions is not used for an improper purpose.
Finally, the division concludes there was no actual prejudice in this case based on overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt. Accordingly, the division affirms the defendant’s convictions. Read the opinion.
Lusia Murillo, Petitioner, v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office of the State of Colorado and the Ritz-Carlton Bachelor Gulch, Respondents, and AIU Insurance Company, Insurer-Respondent. 2026 COA 70. A division of the court of appeals addresses a question of first impression: whether a claimant whose claim was closed for failure to prosecute may reopen it based on “a change in condition” under section 8-43-303(1), C.R.S. 2026, of the Workers’ Compensation Act of Colorado, when compensability had been neither admitted nor determined before closure. The division holds that a claim may be reopened on the basis of a change in condition only if, before the claim was closed, there was an admission or a determination that the claimant sustained a compensable injury.
Because no such admission or determination was made before the closure of the claimant’s claim for failure to prosecute, the division affirms the decision of the Industrial Claim Appeals Office that the claimant’s claim was not eligible to be reopened based on a change in condition. Order affirmed. Read the opinion.
The People of the State of Colorado, Petitioner, In the Interest of S.A.H. and D.A.H., Children, and Concerning H.C.H. and E.A.M. a/k/a E.A.H., Appellants. 2026 COA 71. A division of the court of appeals concludes, for the first time in a published decision, that when a juvenile court in a dependency and neglect case enters an order determining the child’s parentage by resolving competing presumptions of paternity, that order is a final and appealable order because it fully resolved a discrete proceeding embedded within the dependency and neglect case. See In re Marriage of Wiggs, 2025 COA 10.
In reaching this conclusion, the division disagrees with the analysis (but not the conclusion) of a different division of this court in People in Interest of N.S., 2017 COA 8, which held that the order was final and appealable merely because it finally resolved all issues as to the party who was declared not to be the legal father. Order Affirmed. Read the opinion.