The office
The Supreme Court is composed of seven justices who serve ten-year terms.
Requests to review decisions of the Colorado Court of Appeals constitute a majority of the Supreme Court's filings.
From Colorado Judicial Branch.
The questionYes or no
Shall Justice William W. Hood, III of the Colorado Supreme Court be retained in office?
The performance commission's review
- The commission found
- Meets Performance Standards
- Its vote
- 9-0
- Surveys answered
- 31
- Overall grade
- 3.6 of 4
What the commission said
The State Commission on Judicial Performance finds that Justice William W. Hood III, by vote of 9-0 with one commissioner absent, and one commission vacancy, MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. The Colorado statutory judicial performance standards are integrity, legal knowledge, communication skills, judicial temperament, administrative performance, and service to the legal profession and the public.
Justice Hood has served on the Colorado Supreme Court since January 2014. The Commission finds that Justice Hood is courteous to attorneys and treats parties equally without regard to race, sex, or economic status. He demonstrates an admirable work ethic and issues decisions in a timely manner. During oral arguments, he is respectful of the attorneys and their allotted time, and he asks insightful questions. His opinions are well organized, and he has a clear writing style that makes the reader’s job easier. The Commission believes that Justice Hood is a valuable member of the Colorado Supreme Court.
To conduct our evaluation, the Commission interviewed Justice Hood, reviewed his self-evaluation, observed oral arguments, read a selection of his legal opinions, and considered survey responses from attorneys and judges. A total of 7 attorneys and 24 judges responded to the survey; overall, respondents affirmed that Justice Hood meets performance standards.
Before joining the Colorado Supreme Court, Justice Hood spent seven years as a judge on the Denver District Court. Before becoming a judge, Justice Hood was a litigation partner at a Denver law firm and served as a prosecutor for ten years in Colorado’s 18th Judicial District. Justice Hood graduated from the University of Virginia School of Law and Syracuse University. In 2014, the Colorado Chapter of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers gave him its Distinguished Jurist Award. In 2011, he received the Denver Bar Association’s (DBA’s) Judicial Excellence Award. He is a 2007 graduate of the Colorado Bar Association’s leadership training program (COBALT). He has also taught several courses related to advocacy as an adjunct faculty member at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law.
The survey
The share of each group surveyed who said the judge meets performance standards.
The survey's figures
| Meets performance standards | Attorneys | Judges |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | 86% (6) | 100% (24) |
| No | 14% (1) | 0% (0) |
| No opinion | 0% (0) | 0% (0) |
A share of those in the group who answered, and in brackets how many.
Opinions
The judge's published opinions as CourtListener holds them.
Most cited
Headnote
In this case, the supreme court concludes that a division of the court of appeals erred by supplementing this court’s cumulative error standard with caselaw from federal courts. The supreme court reaffirms that the proper standard for analyzing cumulative error claims stems from Oaks v. People, 371 P.2d 443 (Colo. 1962). Applying that standard, the supreme court then concludes that the cumulative prejudicial effect of various trial errors deprived the defendant of a fair trial. Accordingly, the supreme court reverses the judgment of conviction and remands for a new trial.
In re the Marriage of de Koning
Opening paragraph
After a two-day permanent orders hearing in this divorce action, at which the parties presented extensive evidence regarding their finances, the trial court felt it lacked sufficient information to allocate attorney’s fees under section 14-10-119, C.R.S. (2015), the provision governing such awards under the Uniform Dissolution of Marriage Act (UDMA). Therefore, the court chose to issue the decree dissolving the marriage—along with permanent orders addressing parental responsibilities, child support, division of marital property, and spousal maintenance—but postponed its determination on attorney’s fees. Approximately six months after the original hearing, the court conducted a hearing on fees.
Opening paragraph
Shortly after B.H.’s parents brought him to Colorado, the state placed the two-year-old with a foster family. S.L.C. (“mother”) was experiencing homelessness and abusing alcohol, and D.H. (“father”) was struggling with mental health issues and continually returned B.H. to mother. Mother visited B.H. the day of the removal order and then never again. Father made early progress with his treatment plan, but then threatened to kill his lawyer, B.H.’s lawyer, and a caseworker after father lost his job and housing. The day after the threats, father was arrested with a gun, ammunition, body armor, and methamphetamine in his car.
Headnote
The defendant fired a gun at several people in a parking lot. He asserts he did this in self-defense. Over the defendant’s objection, the trial court instructed the jury on two exceptions to the affirmative defense of self-defense: initial aggressor and provocation. The jury convicted the defendant of several criminal charges. The supreme court concludes the division of the court of appeals erred when it determined that the trial court correctly instructed the jury on the initial aggressor exception to self-defense. The supreme court further concludes the error was not harmless in light of the prosecution’s repeated references to the initial aggressor exception during closing argument.
Brooke E. Rojas v. The People of the State of Colorado
Opening paragraph
Today, we discard a troublesome relic from Colorado's common law of evidence: the res gestae doctrine.
Most recent
In Re The People of the State of Colorado v. Michael Martin Clark.
Opening paragraph
We consider whether T.L.P. ("Father") may appeal the district court's order dismissing the dependency and neglect petition filed against him by the Arapahoe County Department of Human Services ("ACDHS"). We answer in the affirmative, concluding that the order was final and appealable given the circumstances of this case, in which a temporary custody order adverse to Father that changed the placement of T.T.M.P. ("the Child") and deprived Father of his parental rights, effectively became permanent upon the petition's dismissal.
Opening paragraph
Jesus Manuel Ortiz was accused of sexually assaulting E.B., whom he regularly drove to activities as part of his employment with MKBS, LLC ("MKBS"), a taxi company. E.B.'s legal guardian, J.B., [1] sued both Ortiz and MKBS; however, Ortiz never responded to the complaint, and the district court entered a clerk's default against him.
The People of the State of Colorado v. Angel Adrian Castro-Velasquez.
Opening paragraph
Crim. P. 41.1 allows law enforcement to obtain a judicial order to collect certain kinds of nontestimonial identification evidence (like the DNA at issue here) without probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed a crime. During the execution of a Rule 41.1 order, officials may not interrogate the suspect. People v. Harris, 762 P.2d 651, 658 (Colo. 1988). If they do, they violate not only the rule but also the Fourth Amendment strictures on which the rule is based.
In Re Bella Boe, Chloe Coe, Danielle Doe, and Gabriella Goe v. Children's Hospital Colorado.
Opening paragraph
In this unusually fraught case-which directly and indirectly implicates efforts to limit the risk of harm to a wide variety of medically vulnerable children-we are asked essentially the following question: Did the trial court err by refusing to enter a preliminary injunction that would have required respondent, Children's Hospital Colorado ("CHC"), to repeal its recent suspension of medical gender-affirming care, when that repeal might invite the wrath of the federal government?[1]
As printed in the document it was read from. The review from the Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation's evaluation and its survey report (read Oct. 12). Opinions from CourtListener, the Free Law Project's archive of court opinions.