The Colorado Court of Appeals published three opinions on Thursday, September 3. Read the summary and full opinion, below.
The People of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mischa Jargowsky, Defendant-Appellant. 2026 COA 66. A division of the court of appeals addresses a novel issue: whether a Colorado court has authority to order the production of electronic records from an out-of-state business. The division holds that section 16-3-301.1, C.R.S. 2026, authorizes the court to order the production of such records. The division further concludes that, under the circumstances of this case, citing the wrong statutory authority did not invalidate the search warrants and the jurisdictional limitation in section 16-3-305(1.5), C.R.S. 2026, was inapplicable to a search warrant authorized by section 16-3-301.1.
Additionally, the division holds that the district court did not err by admitting hearsay evidence, permitting two witnesses to give expert testimony without being endorsed as experts, admitting a video recording containing statements by an undercover police officer who did not testify at trial, and denying the defendant’s proposed affirmative defense instructions on mistake of fact and mistake of law. Accordingly, the division affirms the judgment. Read the opinion.
The People of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Shayla Ann Simpson, Defendant-Appellant. 2026 COA 67. A division of the court of appeals concludes, for the first time in a published opinion, that the prosecution may carry its burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that material is obscene without requiring the jury to view the material. Read the opinion.
The People of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Billy Joe Page, Defendant-Appellant. 2026 COA 68. This is an appeal of a court order denying a petition for postconviction DNA testing pursuant to sections 18-1-411 to -416, C.R.S. 2026, without a hearing.
In 2023, the General Assembly substantially lowered a criminal defendant’s burden to obtain an order authorizing postconviction testing of DNA evidence. For the first time in a published opinion, a division of the court of appeals considers the legal standard a postconviction court must apply when determining whether a defendant is entitled to a hearing on a petition for postconviction DNA testing under the current statute.
The division concludes that the postconviction court must apply the same standard it applies when determining whether a defendant is entitled to a hearing on a Crim. P. 35(c) petition: A
postconviction court may deny a defendant’s petition for postconviction DNA testing without a hearing only if (1) the defendant’s allegations are bare and conclusory; (2) the allegations,
even if true, don’t establish an entitlement to postconviction DNA testing; or (3) the record refutes the defendant’s claims directly.
And in determining the adequacy of a defendant’s allegations, the postconviction court must assume that the requested testing would yield “favorable results” — that is, within the range of possible results, the results that are most favorable to a defendant’s claim that there’s a reasonable probability the defendant wouldn’t have been convicted had the results been available at the original prosecution.
The division further holds that because a postconviction court doesn’t make any factual findings when it denies a petition for postconviction DNA testing without a hearing, an appellate court reviews a postconviction court’s summary denial de novo. Applying these standards, the division concludes that the defendant here adequately alleged an entitlement to postconviction DNA testing and, therefore, reverses the postconviction court’s order and remands the case for the court to hold a hearing on the petition. Read the opinion.