Colorado Supreme Court to hear arguments at Gateway High School in Aurora on Oct. 26

Monday, October 23, 2023
DENVER – The Colorado Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in two cases on Thursday, Oct. 26, 2023, at Gateway High School in Aurora before an audience of students. Limited seating for the public will be available, and visitors must show government-issued identification to enter the school.

The visit is part of the Colorado Judicial Branch’s Courts in the Community, an outreach program the Colorado Supreme Court and Court of Appeals initiated on Law Day (May 1), 1986, and will be the first one conducted in-person since the pandemic began. Courts in the Community was developed to provide Colorado high school students insight regarding the Colorado judicial system and illustrate how disputes are resolved in a democratic society. These are not mock proceedings. The court will hear arguments in actual cases from which it will issue opinions. The court generally issues opinions within a few months of the arguments.

All seven justices hear cases together. They are Chief Justice Brian D. Boatright and Justices Monica M. Márquez, William W. Hood III, Richard L. Gabriel, Melissa Hart, Carlos A. Samour Jr., and Maria E. Berkenkotter.

The two cases are: 

• 22SC632, County of Jefferson v. Beverly Stickle: The Supreme Court has agreed to review Jefferson County government’s appeal of a trial court decision that had been affirmed by the Court of Appeals that would allow further proceedings in a woman’s lawsuit against the county. Beverly Stickle’s arm was broken when she tripped over a curb in the parking structure outside the county’s courts and administration building in February 2018. She sued, claiming the county was liable because the curb was poorly marked, creating a dangerous condition. The county moved to dismiss the case under the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act (CGIA), arguing its immunity was not waived. The trial court denied the motion, finding that immunity was waived because the structure met the CGIA’s definition of a building and the nature of the curb fit the statute’s definition of a dangerous condition. A division of the Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed that decision, and the county asked the Supreme Court to review the Court of Appeals’ decision. The Supreme Court agreed to consider whether the parking structure is a building under the CGIA, and whether the condition of the curb met the definition of a dangerous condition under that statute.
• 22SC272, Arnold R. Martinez v. The People of the State of Colorado: Arnold R. Martinez asked the Supreme Court to review his case after a division of the Court of Appeals upheld a trial court’s decision ordering him to pay restitution related to his theft of a bicycle in Boulder. Martinez was charged with stealing an expensive bicycle from the garage of a Boulder house. The owner was alerted to the theft and tried to stop Martinez by pulling his car in front of the bicycle as Martinez tried to get away. Martinez collided with the car, walked to another car and drove away. In a plea agreement involving multiple cases, charges related to the bicycle theft were dismissed but Martinez agreed to pay restitution for damages caused by that theft. Though Martinez objected to restitution for damages caused to the victim’s car, the prosecution successfully sought about $2,400 to cover the cost of repairs to the victim’s car. Martinez appealed the trial court’s ruling, arguing he was not the proximate cause of damage to the car, but the Court of Appeals disagreed. In his appeal to the Supreme Court, Martinez argued, among other things, that the Court of Appeals applied the wrong standard of review in coming to its decision. The term standard of review is the level of deference, if any, the reviewing court must give to the lower-court decision being appealed. The Court of Appeals’ majority opinion was based on a mid-level standard giving the trial court’s decisions some deference, but Martinez argued the Court of Appeals should have given no deference to the trial court’s decision and instead should have looked at the issue as if it were being considered for the first time.

The proceedings will begin at 9 a.m. Thursday, Oct. 26, 2023, in the auditorium at Gateway High School, 1300 S. Sable Blvd., Aurora, CO 80012. A question-and-answer session, during which the students may ask questions of the attorneys, will follow the arguments in each case. At the conclusion of the second argument, the students also will have the opportunity to participate in a question-and-answer session with the Supreme Court justices.

There will be a limited number of seats for the public. Audio recordings from the two arguments will be available online within one to two days of the arguments at http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/Oral_Arguments/Index.cfm.

Editor’s Note:

The documents related to these two cases are located at https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Education/Materials.cfm?s=Fall&y=2023.  

Additional information on the Courts in the Community program is available at http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Education/Community.cfm.

News media organizations interested in recording the arguments may contact Jon Sarché at jon.sarche@judicial.state.co.us or 720-625-5811. The following pages contain information about expanded media coverage.

Media opportunity

What:             Colorado Supreme Court Oral Arguments

When:             9 a.m. – noon, Oct. 26, 2023

Where:           Gateway High School, 1300 S. Sable Blvd., Aurora, CO 80012

Photo opportunities. During oral arguments, the requirements set forth in Chapter 38, Rule 3 of the Colorado Supreme Court Rules are in effect. Rule 3 is attached. Highlights include:

1. A request for expanded media coverage (https://www.courts.state.co.us/Media/request/) must be filed in advance with copies to counsel for the parties (see below).
2. If granted, only one video camera and/or one still camera is allowed, and that media source must share and pool its coverage with other media.
3. No flash attachments or lighted television cameras are allowed during the arguments.
4. The camera operator may use a tripod, but shall not change location while court is in session.

For information, contact Jon Sarché, (720) 625-5811.

Following each argument, during the question-and-answer interaction between the students, lawyers and justices, access is open for media opportunities without the limitations of Rule 3. All media representatives also are welcome to photograph the luncheon immediately following the cases.

Schedule:

9 a.m. – 9:15 a.m.

Opening remarks

9:15 a.m. – 10:15 a.m.

22SC632: County of Jefferson v. Stickle

10:15 a.m. – 10:30 a.m.

Justices conference; attorneys answer students’ questions

10:30 a.m. – 11:30 a.m.

22SC272: Martinez v. People

11:30 a.m. – 11:45 a.m.

Justices conference; attorneys answer students’ questions

11:45 a.m. – 12 p.m.

Justices answer students’ questions

12 p.m. – 1:30 p.m. (est.)

Lunch, justices and selected students

Request for Expanded Media Coverage. Requests must be submitted at least one day prior to the proceeding as outlined in Rule 3 (submitting requests three days prior to the proceeding is appreciated to allow for response time). Requests may be made by filling out the form at https://www.courts.state.co.us/Media/request/. Contact information for counsel in the cases is provided below.

Expanded media coverage of court proceedings

The presence of expanded media coverage in the Colorado court system’s courtrooms is controlled by strict standards spelled out in Chapter 38, Rule 3 of the Colorado Supreme Court Rules effective July 1, 2010. The rule also outlines each step necessary to garner approval for such coverage.

There are several points in the Rule of particular note:

1. A request for expanded media coverage (https://www.courts.state.co.us/Media/request/) must be submitted to the court at least one day before expanded media coverage is requested to begin, unless a longer or shorter time is required or permitted by the court.
2. Copies of the expanded media coverage request shall be sent to all counsel for each party participating in the proceeding prior to submitting the request to the court.
3. The request must include a description of the pooling arrangements, including the identity of the designated representatives.
4. Any party or witness may lodge with the judge a written objection to expanded coverage of all or a portion of a proceeding.