SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO 9:00 a.m.Oral Argument: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 EN BANCBailiff: Farrell Carfield

07SC50 (1 HOUR)

Petitioner:

JIMMY J. VASQUEZ,

v.

Respondent:

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO.

)))))))))))))

For the Petitioner:Douglas K. WilsonColorado State Public DefenderTodd E. MairDeputy State Public Defender

For the Respondent:John W. SuthersAttorney GeneralLaurie A. BoorasFirst Assistant Attorney GeneralAppellate DivisionCriminal Justice Section

Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 04CA0729Docketed: January 16, 2007At Issue: July 16, 2007

ISSUE(S):

Whether the “forfeiture by wrongdoing” doctrine applies, eliminating a defendant’s constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him, in the absence of any facts indicating that the defendant’s purpose was to silence the witness.

Whether a defendant who loses his confrontation rights under the “forfeiture by wrongdoing” doctrine also loses his due process right to a fair trial based on reliable evidence admitted in accordance with the rules of evidence. ______________________________________________________________________________

1

Oral Argument: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 10:00 a.m. EN BANC

06SC491 (1/2 HOUR)

Petitioner:

JOSE PENA,

v.

Respondent:

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO.

)))))))))))))

For the Petitioner:Douglas K. WilsonColorado State Public DefenderKathleen A. LordDeputy State Public Defender

For the Respondent:John W. SuthersAttorney GeneralLaurie A. BoorasFirst Assistant Attorney GeneralAppellate DivisionCriminal Justice Section

Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 03CA0892Docketed: August 29, 2006At Issue: May 29, 2007

ISSUE(S):

Whether the forfeiture by wrongdoing doctrine should be adopted in Colorado and, if so, whether application of the doctrine requires proof of defendant’s intent to prevent the declarant from testifying at trial.

Whether, assuming arguendo that a defendant may be barred from raising a Confrontation Clause claim, the court of appeals erred in refusing to consider whether the challenged hearsay was admissible under the Rules of Evidence. ______________________________________________________________________________

2

Oral Argument: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 10:30 a.m. EN BANC

06SC809 (1/2 HOUR)

Petitioner:

NANCY GALLION,

v.

Respondent:

COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MOTOR VEHICLE DIVISION.

))))))))))))

For the Petitioner:Kristopher L. HammondHammond Law Offices

For the Respondent:John W. SuthersAttorney GeneralCeri WilliamsAssistant Attorney GeneralBusiness and Licensing Section

Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 05CA1054Docketed: December 11, 2006At Issue: June 18, 2007

ISSUE(S):

Whether the court of appeals erred by holding that Petitioner could not validly recant her refusal to take a chemical blood alcohol test even though she consented to a chemical test within two hours of driving as required by section 42-4-1301.1(2)(a)(III), C.R.S. (2006), but the arresting officer was no longer available and had returned to patrol.

______________________________________________________________________________

3

SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO 1:30 p.m.Oral Argument: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 EN BANCBailiff: Richard Murray

06SC698 (1/2 HOUR)

Petitioner:

CLANCY SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL, INC.,

v.

Respondent:

FRANCIS R. SALAZAR.

))))))))))

For the Petitioner:Dana L. EismeierRachel T. RowleyBurns, Figa & Will, P.C.

For the Respondent:David Sean Carroll

Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 04CA2347Docketed: October 20, 2006At Issue: June 18, 2007

ISSUE(S):

Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that the Uniform Commercial Code, specifically C.R.S. section 4-8-401, does not preempt common law claims or remedies relating to the registration of a transfer of stock, including the issuance of a stock certificate.______________________________________________________________________________

4

Oral Argument: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 2:00 p.m. EN BANC

07SC73 (1/2 HOUR)

Petitioner:

EVA SIGALA,

v.

Respondents:

INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS OFFICE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO, ATENCIO’S MARKET, and ROYAL & SUNALLIANCE.

))))))))))))))))))))))

For the Petitioner:Lawrence D. SaundersKoncilja & Koncilja, P.C.

For the Respondents Atencio’s Market, and Royal & SunAlliance:Gregory K. ChambersC. Sandra PyunDworkin, Chambers, Williams, York, Benson & Evans, P.C.

For the Respondent Industrial Claim Appeals Office:John W. SuthersAttorney GeneralLaurie RottersmanAssistant Attorney GeneralLabor and Personnel UnitState Services Section

For Amicus Curiae WCEA:William J. Macdonald

Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 05CA1597Docketed: January 25, 2007At Issue: June 21, 2007

ISSUE(S):

Whether the court of appeals erred in interpreting the word "suspend" in section 8-42-105 (2)(c), C.R.S. as allowing for the permanent denial of wage-loss benefits.______________________________________________________________________________

5

SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO 9:00 a.m.Oral Argument: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 EN BANCBailiff: Jared Butcher

06SC559 (1 HOUR)

Petitioners:

COLORADO EDUCATION ASSOCIATION and POUDRE EDUCATION ASSOCIATION,

v.

Respondents:

WAYNE RUTT and PAUL MARRICK.

))))))))))))

For the Petitioners:Mark G. GrueskinBlain D. MyhreDaniel C. StilesIsaacson Rosenbaum, P.C.

For the Respondents:Scott E. GesslerHugh C. ThatcherHackstaff Gessler, LLC

Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 05CA1718Docketed: September 5, 2006At Issue: May 22, 2007

ISSUE(S):

Whether the court of appeals erroneously interpreted the term "coordinated with" as used in Colorado Constitution Article XXVIII, sections 2(9) and 5(3), in deciding a question of first impression.

Whether the court of appeals erred in concluding that the Petitioners coordinated their campaign activities with a candidate, under Article XXVIII, sections 2(9) and 5(3) and, therefore, that Petitioners violated the prohibition on labor organizations making contributions to candidate committees (Colorado Constitution Article XXVIII, section 3(4)(a)).

Whether the court of appeals erred in failing to address the application of the "membership exception," where the ALJ concluded that most of the Petitioners' communications were not made to non-members.______________________________________________________________________________

6

Oral Argument: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 10:00 a.m. EN BANC

06SC757 (1/2 HOUR)

Petitioner:

JOHN HOLCOMB,

v.

Respondent:

JAN-PRO CLEANING SYSTEMS OF SOUTHERN COLORADO.

))))))))))

For the Petitioner:Lisa W. StevensandMax G. Margulis

For the Respondent:Mark A. LarsonKevin D. AllenAllen & Vellone, P.C.

Certiorari to the District Court, El Paso County, 06CV1687Docketed: November 27, 2006At Issue: June 8, 2007

ISSUE(S):

Whether the district court erred by adding a use test to the Colorado No-Call laws by concluding that Petitioner removed his residential subscriber home telephone number from No-Call protection because Petitioner uses his residential subscriber home telephone for personal and office use, when the legislature passed the No-Call Act to protect the statutorily defined classification of residential subscriber with use of a home telephone being irrelevant.______________________________________________________________________________

7

Oral Argument: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 10:30 a.m. EN BANC

06SA146 (1 HOUR)

In the Matter of :

SUSAN G. HAINES.

))))))))))

For the Attorney-Respondent/Appellant:Eric B. LiebmanMoye White, LLP

For the Complainant-Appellee:John S. GleasonAttorney Regulation CounselKim IkelerAssistant Regulation Counsel

Original Proceeding in Discipline, Appeal from the Hearing Board, 04PDJ112Docketed April 25, 2006At Issue: June 26, 2007

ISSUE(S):

Whether the Hearing Panel erred by failing to properly apply the OARC’s burden to prove its case by clear and convincing evidence.

Whether the Hearing Panel erred by failing to consider the misleading information provided to Mr. Erpelding by his attorney (and Ms. Haines’ co-counsel) Mr. Mihm.

Whether the Hearing Panel erred by admitting into evidence, over the objection of counsel for Ms. Haines, the videotape of John Erpelding- which was taken without Ms. Haines’ counsel present- and by viewing the videotape prior to the hearing and outside the presence of counsel.

Whether the Hearing Panel erred in failing to consider testimony of Ms. Haines’ expert witnesses.

Whether the Hearing Panel confused the issues of to whom Ms. Haines owed duties and what duties are owed.______________________________________________________________________________

8

SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO 1:30 p.m.Oral Argument: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 EN BANCBailiff: Caleb Durling

06SC780 (1 HOUR)

IN THE MATTER OF J.C.T., a minor child,

Petitioners:

Paula Constantakis Young, Guardian Ad Litem, and Three Affiliated Tribes

v.

Respondent:

C.A.H.

)))))))))))))))))

For J.C.T.:Paula Constantakis Young

For the Petitioner Three Affiliated Tribes:Jill E. TompkinsDirectorAnn M. RhodesStudent AttorneyAmerican Indian Law ClinicUniversity of Colorado School of Law

For the Respondent:Richard L. GabrielTimothy M. ReynoldsDavid A. ToniniHolme Roberts & Owen, LLP

Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 05CA1065Docketed: November 22, 2006At Issue: June 29, 2007

ISSUE(S):

Whether the court of appeals erred by holding that a probate court exceeded its jurisdiction in directing a guardian ad litem to find a permanent guardian for a ward and considering the potential for an eventual adoption in its evaluation of the best interests of the ward.

Whether the court of appeals erred when it held that the appointment of the guardian ad litem as temporary guardian divested the probate court of jurisdiction and vested jurisdiction with the juvenile court under section 19-3-102, C.R.S. (2006).______________________________________________________________________________

9

Oral Argument: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 2:30 p.m. EN BANC

06SC454 (1/2 HOUR)

Petitioner:

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO.

v.

Respondent:

JOHN RICHARD RICKMAN.

))))))))))))

For the Petitioner:John W. SuthersAttorney GeneralRoger G. BillotteAssistant Attorney GeneralAppellate DivisionCriminal Justice Section

For the Respondent:Curtis V. SmithStephen C. CookSmith & Cook, LLC

Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 04CA0501Docketed: July 25, 2006At Issue: July 23, 2007

ISSUE(S):

Whether the court of appeals erred in reversing the defendant’s convictions on two counts of violation of bond when it concluded that pretrial services acted ultra vires and without statutory authority in imposing those bond conditions. ______________________________________________________________________________

10

SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO 9:00 a.m.Oral Argument: Thursday, September 13, 2007 EN BANCBailiff: Pax Moultrie

06SC705 (1/2 HOUR)

Petitioner:

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO.

v.

Respondent:

JAMES MACLEOD.

))))))))))))

For the Petitioner:Carol Chambers18th Judicial District AttorneyPaul R. WolffChief Deputy District AttorneyBryan GarrettDeputy District Attorney

For the Respondent:Harvey A. SteinbergMichael P. ZwiebelSpringer & Steinberg, P.C.

Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 05CA1586Docketed: October 23, 2006At Issue: June 25, 2007

ISSUE(S):

Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that defendant’s failure to follow the procedures outlined in the Rape Shield statute did not prevent his cross-examination of a witness regarding her past history of being a victim of child sexual abuse.______________________________________________________________________________

11

Oral Argument: Thursday, September 13, 2007 9:30 a.m. EN BANC

07SC133 (1/2 HOUR)

Petitioner:

ALFREDO HERNANDEZ, JR.,

v.

Respondent:

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO.

)))))))))))))

For the Petitioner:Douglas K. WilsonColorado State Public DefenderRebecca R. FreyreDeputy State Public Defender

For the Respondent:John W. SuthersAttorney GeneralPatricia R. Van HornAssistant Attorney GeneralAppellate DivisionCriminal Justice Section

Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 05CA1048Docketed: February 23, 2007At Issue: July 10, 2007

ISSUE(S):

Whether section 16-11.7-105(1), C.R.S. (2006) mandates sex offender treatment as a condition of probation in all cases or whether a sentencing court has discretion to order treatment “to the extent appropriate to such offender.”______________________________________________________________________________

12

SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO 1:30 p.m.Oral Argument: Thursday, September 13, 2007 EN BANCBailiff: Daniela Ronchetti

06SC586 (1/2 HOUR)

Petitioner:

WILLIAM ROMERO,

v.

Respondent:

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO.

)))))))))))))

For the Petitioner:Douglas K. WilsonColorado State Public DefenderElizabeth GriffinDeputy State Public Defender

For the Respondent:Rodney D. Fouracre16th Judicial District AttorneyJames S. WhitmireDeputy District AttorneyPamela S. MucklowDeputy District Attorney

Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 05CA0961Docketed: October 11, 2006At Issue: July 9, 2007

ISSUE(S):

Whether the court of appeals erred in ruling that the imposition of a longer community corrections term upon revocation of the original term violates neither double jeopardy nor section 18-1.3-301(1)(e), C.R.S., so long as the defendant is afforded a hearing.______________________________________________________________________________

13

Oral Argument: Thursday, September 13, 2007 2:00 p.m. EN BANC

07SA113 (1/2 HOUR)

In re:

Plaintiff:

LESLIE LANAHAN, individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Lynn Gordon Bailey, Jr.

v.

Defendants:CHI PSI FRATERNITY, ALPHA PSI DELTA CORPORATION OF CHI PSI, individually and as a chapter and agent of Chi Psi Fraternity, PATRICK STEPHENSON WALL, NICHOLAS AARON ABRAHAMSEN, FRANK WILLIAMSON DARDEN, BRETT JAMISON HERTER, CHRISTOPHER NELSON JONES, MICHAEL BURNS RYAN, and ALAN JOSEPH WILLIAMS.

)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

For the Plaintiff:A. Bruce JonesStephen G. MasciocchiHolland & Hart, LLP

For the Defendant Patrick Stephenson Wall:Sheryl L. AndersonDavid G. MayhanL. Michael Brooks, Jr.William T. O’Connell, IIIWells, Anderson & Race, LLC

For the Defendant Christopher Nelson Jones:Brett GodfreyRyan E. WarrenGodfrey & Lapuyade, P.C.

For the Defendant Michael Burns Ryan:Bradley D. TuckerKristin A. BrennerWalberg, Tucker & Holmes, P.C.

For Defendant Brett Jamison Herter:Peter S. DusbabekPeter J. DausterMontgomery, Kolodny, Amatuzio & Dusbabek

For Defendant Alan Joseph Williams:John P. CraverWhite & Steele, P.C.

For Defendants CHI PSI Fraternity & ALPHA PSI DELTA Corporation of CHI PSI:James E. GoldfarbSpencer L. SearsSenter Goldfarb & Rice, LLC

14

)))))))))))))))))))))

Cont’d on to next page07SA113

Cont’d from previous page

For Defendant Nicholas Aaron Abrahamsen:Douglas I. McQuistonLaw Offices of Douglas I. McQuiston

For Defendant Frank Williamson Darden:Elizabeth C. MoranAaron P. BradfordPryor Johnson Carney Karr Nixon, P.C.

For Amicus Curiae the Colorado Defense Lawyers Association:C. Todd DrakeAmy E. Cook-OlsonMontgomery Little Soran & Murray, P.C.

Original Proceeding, District Court, Boulder County, 06CV424Docketed: April 11, 2007At Issue: August 3, 2007

ISSUE(S):

Does the cap on noneconomic damages in C.R.S. § 13-21-203(1)(a) apply on a “per-claim” or “per-defendant” basis?

15

SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO 3:30 p.m.Public Hearing: Thursday, September 13, 2007 EN BANCBailiff: Susan Festag

Proposed Amendment to Chapter 33

The Colorado Rules of Evidence

Rule 404. Character Evidence Not Admissible to Prove Conduct, Exception; Other Crimes

Rule 408. Compromise and Offers to Compromise

and

Rule 606. Competency of Juror as Witness

16