People v. Bohl
Following a four-day murder trial, a deputy district attorney who was not involved in prosecuting the case sent a text message to the wife of the jury foreman asking her to relay information about his performance during the case. Following the communication, the People filed a “Notice of Juror Contact” with the trial court.
In response, counsel for defendant Joshua Thomas Bohl filed a motion for a new trial.
Bohl also requested alternatively that the court hold a hearing on the incident and release the jurors’ contact information. Folowing a hearing with the jury foreman and his wife, the court did not address the request for jury contact information and denied Bohl’s motion for a new trial and later sentenced Bohl to life in prison without the possibility of parole.
Bohl appealed the trial court’s decision denying him access to juror contact information. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Because the record lacked evidence of jury misconduct, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to release juror contact information.
People v. Timoshchuk
Maksim Timoshchuk, who was born in Ukraine, admitted to the U.S. as a refugee and was later made a lawful permanent resident, pleaded guilty to forgery and to a DUI in a separate case and admitted violating his parole. He was sentenced to probation for all three cases. A probation officer later alleged he violated parole.
Timoshchuk entered into an agreement resolving all four cases, and the Department of Homeland Security later initiated removal proceedings against Timoshchuk. Timoshchuk then filed a postconviction motion under Crim. P. 35(c), alleging that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because his probation revocation counsel failed to adequately investigate and correctly advise him of the immigration consequences of his admission and subsequent sentencing. The district court denied that motion without a hearing.
Timoshchuk appealed the district court’s order summarily denying his Crim. P. 35(c) motion. The Court of Appeals held that a probationer facing revocation proceedings has a statutory right to counsel and thus a right to effective assistance of counsel. Because Timoshchuk asserted sufficient facts to warrant a hearing on his claim, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
In re Marriage of Heine
In this post-dissolution of marriage proceeding involving the children of Alexandre Ford Garrett, the mother, and Daniel Meyer Heine, the father, Garrett appealed a district court order modifying child support and awarding retroactive child support.
The Court of Appeals affirmed a portion of the order retroactively establishing a child support order, reversed a portion of the order determining mother’s income and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court interpreted a 2013 amendment to the child support statute that resolved conflicting decisions from divisions of the Court of Appeals concerning parents’ responsibilities to pay child support when a voluntary change in parenting time occurs.
People v. Hodge
Travis Hodge had engaged in a sexual act involving bondage with a 14-year-old he met on the internet.
Prosecutors charged Travis Hodge with three counts of sexual assault on a child and alleged that he “applied force against the victim to accomplish or facilitate the sexual contact,” rendering each a class 3 felony under section 18-3-405(1) and (2)(a).
The district court concluded there was “insufficient evidence to establish that force was used to accomplish or facilitate the sexual contact,” and it bound over the relevant sexual assault charges as class 4 felonies. Thus, it was the consensual use of the restraints rather than the restraints themselves, that rendered the evidence of force insufficient.
The People appealed the district court’s order dismissing three force aggravators for three sexual assault on a child charges against Hodge based on its finding that because the victim had consented to the force, the prosecution did not establish probable cause for the use of force at the preliminary hearing.
The court resolved a novel question in Colorado by concluding that a child victim cannot consent to the use of force.
The court reversed the order and remanded the case for reinstatement of three sexual assault on a child charges as class 3 felonies.