Editor’s Note: Law Week Colorado edits court opinion summaries for style and, when necessary, length.
People in Interest of A.T.S.
A.T.S. appealed his adjudication for sexual assault on a child. He contended that the juvenile court reversibly erred by allowing the victim to testify by closed-circuit television; the prosecutor engaged in misconduct during closing argument; and there was insufficient evidence that an act occurred after A.T.S. turned 10 years old. The Colorado Court of Appeals rejected these arguments and affirmed the judgment.
In addressing A.T.S.’s contentions, the appeals court noted it confronted a novel issue in Colorado: Can a juvenile court permit a child witness to testify via closed-circuit television primarily because the child would be traumatized by the presence of the defendant’s family? The court held that it cannot.
The appeals court clarified that a child witness may testify by closed-circuit television only if the trial court finds, among other factors, that the child would be traumatized by the presence of the defendant in the courtroom. While the child may have various fears about testifying, the presence of the defendant must be the dominant reason preventing the child from testifying in open court.
Because the juvenile court found that A.T.S.’s presence was not the dominant reason that the victim could not testify in open court, the appeals court concluded that it erred by permitting the victim to testify via closed-circuit television. However, after reviewing the record, the court determined that this error was constitutionally harmless.
Kritzer v. Qwest Corp.
Stuart Kritzer and Janet Kritzer appealed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Qwest Corporation. In granting summary judgment, the district court applied the Colorado Recreational Use Statute, Sections 33-41-101 to -106, and determined that Qwest was shielded from liability for injuries Stuart Kritzer sustained while bicycling over a sidewalk panel that Qwest purportedly had an obligation to maintain.
As relevant to this appeal, CRUS grants a landowner, as defined in Section 33-41-102(3), immunity from liability for injuries incurred on their land when such owner “either directly or indirectly invites or permits, without charge, any person to use such property for recreational purposes.”
The Colorado Court of Appeals addressed, as a matter of first impression, what “invites or permits” means under CRUS. Because it concluded that the district court erred in its determination that Qwest invited or permitted recreational use of the land at issue, the appeals court reversed the judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.
In reaching this conclusion, the court first addressed the Kritzers’ contention that Qwest didn’t have the authority to invite or permit Stuart Kritzer to use the land. Because the court agreed with the Kritzers on this issue, it concluded that the district court erred in determining that CRUS shields Qwest from liability. Because that conclusion alone necessitates reversal of the district court’s order for summary judgment, the appeals court didn’t reach the Kritzers’ remaining claims.