The Colorado Supreme Court released three opinions on Monday, June 8. Below are the summaries of each with a link to the entire opinion.
In Re The People of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff v. Omar Alexander Mena Defendant. 2026 CO 42. In the underlying criminal case from which this C.A.R. 21 proceeding emerged, the defendant was charged with three counts of sexual assault under three different statutory provisions. The trial court presented the jury with verdict forms that included the charged offenses and the lesser-included offense of attempt as to each count.
After three days of deliberation, the jury sent a written note to the court that clearly suggested it had acquitted the defendant of the charged offenses but was deadlocked on the lesser-included offenses. Departing from federal precedent, the supreme court holds that under these circumstances – when a partial verdict is spontaneous, final, and unambiguous regarding the charges to which it applies – a trial court violates the defendant’s right to be protected from double jeopardy under the Colorado Constitution if it fails to accept that verdict. Accordingly, the order to show cause is made absolute. Read the opinion.
In Re The People of the State of Colorado, In the Interest of Minor Child: G.D.M., Petitioner, Morgan County Department of Human Services, and Concerning M.O.M. and Unknown Father, Respondents. 2026 CO 43. The supreme court holds that a parent properly invoking Colorado’s Safe Haven Law,§ 19-3-304.5, С.R.S. (2025), is entitled to anonymity and confidentiality. Accordingly, a county department of human or social services (a “county department”) may not take steps to discover the identity of a parent who surrenders a newborn pursuant to the statute, and, if it nevertheless learns that identity, may not contact family members to search for a potential placement. And because parents who fall under the protective mantle of the Safe Haven Law are entitled to anonymity and confidentiality, a county department may not treat proceedings under this law as it would other abandonment cases. Instead, when a newborn is abandoned under the terms of the Safe Haven Law, a county department must, as soon as possible, (1) place the child with a potential adoptive parent, and (2) move to terminate the parents’ parental rights while respecting their right to anonymity and confidentiality.
The juvenile court reached the same conclusions. Accordingly, the supreme court discharges its order to show cause. Read the opinion.
In Re Samantha Pinto, Plaintiff v. United Services Automobile Association, Defendant. 2026 CO 44. The supreme court holds that the trial court did not err in declining to extend Schultz v. GEICO Cas. Сo., 2018 СО 87, 429 P.3d 844, to breach of contract claims. The supreme court further holds that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in compelling the production of the plaintiff’s medical records and insurance documents, and in ordering the plaintiff undergo an independent medical examination because these materials were relevant to establishing her claim for uninsured motorist benefits under her breach of contract claim. Read the opinion.