The Colorado Court of Appeals released two opinions on Thursday, June 11. Below are the summaries of each with a link to the entire opinion.
Preston Nunn, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gabriel Nestor, Defendant-Appellant. 2026 COA 49. In this civil case, which involves claims against a police officer for unreasonable seizure and excessive use of force, a division of the court of appeals considers whether the jury returned a special verdict under C.R.C.P. 49(a) or a general verdict with special interrogatories under C.R.C.P. 49(b). The answer matters because whether the defendant preserved his contention that the verdict is irreconcilably inconsistent depends on the type of verdict that the jury returned. Expanding on the analysis in Morales v. Golston, 141 P.3d 901 (Colo. App. 2005), the division concludes that the jury’s verdict was a general verdict with special interrogatories and, therefore, the defendant’s challenge is unpreserved.
The division further concludes that any errors in the district court’s jury instructions were harmless and that the defendant failed to demonstrate that he was prejudiced by the court’s decision to strike his expert witness. Accordingly, the division affirms the judgment. Read the opinion.
The People of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Monroe Taylor, Defendant Appellee. 2026 COA 50. A division of the court of appeals concludes, as a matter of first impression, that People v. Vigil, 2021 CO 46, ¶ 33 — in which the supreme court held that the “facts of the actual injury control the substantial risk of death determination under section 18-1-901(3)(p)[, C.R.S. 2025, which defines serious bodily injury], not the risk generally associated with the type of conduct or injury in question” — extends to a trial court’s determination under a different clause of section 18-1-901(3)(p): whether the injury involved “a substantial risk of protracted loss or impairment of the function of any part or organ of the body.”
The division also concludes that the prosecution’s evidence didn’t establish probable cause that the suffered injury amounted to serious bodily injury. Order affirmed and case remanded with directions. Read the opinion.