The Colorado Supreme Court will hear three cases during oral arguments Feb. 7, including one connected to a murder case.
According to an unpublished opinion from the Colorado Court of Appeals from 2021, John Cruz was acquitted of first-degree murder in 1992 after a jury found him not guilty by reason of insanity. He was admitted to the Colorado Mental Health Institute in Pueblo and in 2006, Cruz was granted conditional release. In 2018, it was revoked because Cruz refused to cooperate with a court-ordered examination, according to the court of appeals.
In late 2017, the superintendent of CMHIP was concerned Cruz wasn’t complying with the terms of his release and asked a district court to issue a warrant for Cruz’s arrest and order an examination to determine Cruz’s eligibility to remain on release. The court granted the order, but Cruz wasn’t arrested as he agreed to voluntarily readmit himself to CMHIP. After the readmission, CMHIP told the court it no longer sought revocation of his release and had been working on a plan to discharge Cruz.
Over the next few months, CMHIP suspected Cruz was violating additional terms of his release during the voluntary readmission, including secretly opening credit card accounts and allegedly abusing prescription medication. In April 2018, CMHIP informed the court it believed Cruz was ineligible to remain on conditional release. CMHIP received an order for Cruz’s arrest and required an examination.
Since Cruz was already at CMHIP he wasn’t formally arrested. The district attorney also filed an application to revoke Cruz’s release. A CMHIP psychiatrist did meet with Cruz for the examination and Cruz remembered the psychiatrist from another evaluation and didn’t want to meet with them. Cruz allegedly told the psychiatrist he thought revocation was a predetermined matter. The psychiatrist honored Cruz’s request and left, submitting a report that recommended Cruz’s release be revoked.
At a hearing in district court, the district attorney sought revocation of Cruz’s release due to not cooperating with the exam. The psychiatrist testified he told Cruz it could lead to an adverse effect for Cruz if he didn’t want to meet with the psychiatrist. The psychiatrist added Cruz said that was OK and didn’t want to meet.
Cruz’s counsel challenged the revocation proceedings on statutory grounds and argued the procedures weren’t followed because the examination wasn’t recorded, and Cruz was denied an opportunity to request an independent examination.
The district court rejected both arguments finding no examination occurred because it believed Cruz didn’t cooperate. The district court said that had the exam taken place, the court probably would find it was required to be recorded. The district court also decided Cruz’s non-cooperation triggered automatic revocation, which meant the second evaluation was meaningless. The district court concluded CMHIP “substantially complied” with statutory procedure.
In the Colorado Court of Appeals, Cruz appealed on multiple grounds, including alleging the revocation procedure violated various statutory mandates. The appeals court addressed that issue first because it was the only one Cruz raised in district court in part, according to the opinion. The Colorado Court of Appeals agreed the procedure didn’t fully comply with some statutory requirements, but it didn’t require a reversal.
According to Colorado Revised Statute 16-8-115.5(5), cited by the appeals court, if a defendant refuses to submit to and cooperate with the exam, the committing court should revoke the conditional release.
Cruz contended for the first time on appeal, the district court didn’t comply with Colorado Revised Statute 16-8-106 because the order for examination didn’t specify its duration. Under 16-8-106(1)(a), examinations should be accomplished by an order that specified the place and time for the exam.
Due to the order not specifying the period of time for the exam, the order was an obvious error, according to the appeals court. The appeals court argued, however, Cruz didn’t assert or show any prejudice that would require reversal under plain error and the record showed Cruz determined the exam’s length.
Under 16-8-115.5(5), the exam should have also been done within 21 days after Cruz was delivered to CMHIP. Since Cruz was already there, it wasn’t necessary to arrest and deliver him there, according to the appeals court.
The appeals court added when the court granted the arrest application, Cruz’s stay became an involuntary admission, and CMHIP needed to complete the exam by April 23. CMHIP didn’t conduct the exam until May 14. The appeals court said, although Cruz didn’t raise the issue in district court, it was an obvious error. The appeals court contended Cruz didn’t explain how the delay affected the fairness of the proceedings, further concluding the two- to three-week delay for the exam wasn’t clearly detrimental.
The appeals court also agreed not recording the interview was also in error. The appeals court, however, found no prejudice to justify reversal as Cruz didn’t argue a recording would have shown anything other than his refusal to cooperate.
Cruz also argued 16-8-115.5(5) requiring revocation for a defendant’s refusal to cooperate with a mental health exam is unconstitutional. More arguments were also made by Cruz, but the Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the order.
Judge JoAnn Vogt dissented, writing in part: “I conclude that the automatic revocation provision is unconstitutional on its face, and that application of the provision here violated Cruz’s right to due process. I would reverse the district court’s order on this basis and would not reach the other issues addressed in the majority opinion.”
The question before the Colorado Supreme Court is whether the automatic revocation provision in 16-8-115.5(5) is unconstitutional under Foucha v. Louisiana. According to the dissent, under that prior U.S. Supreme Court case, the high court held that an individual committed to a mental institution following an acquittal by a reason of insanity can be confined only as long as the individual is both mentally ill and dangerous.
Vogt argued Cruz’s conditional release was revoked not because of those reasons, but because he hadn’t cooperated with a psychiatrist’s attempted exam. Vogt argued the majority didn’t reach the substance of Cruz’s argument that automatic revocation is arbitrary and violates due process, both facially and applied, because it wasn’t raised in district court.
The Colorado Supreme Court will also hear two interconnected cases on water law Feb. 7 involving Front Range Feedlots and state engineers. For a full list of questions for those cases, click here.
CORRECTION NOTE: An earlier version of this story stated the appeals court affirmed a judgment when it had affirmed an order. The error was corrected Feb. 1. Law Week regrets the error.