People Ex Rel. State Eng'r v. Sease, 2018 CO 91

Sheep Creek crosses the Sease Ranch; the State alleged Sease built multiple water structures that caused out-of-priority depletions. The State issued cease-and-desist orders from 2003–2007 and sued in water court in 2007.
Sease repeatedly admitted in pleadings and stipulations (incorporated into multiple court orders) that he owns the Sease Ranch and that structures on the property diverted water.
The parties entered several stipulations and contempt resolutions from 2008–2013; the 2013 Order permanently enjoined Sease from acting in or along Sheep Creek without prior written approval.
In 2015 the State filed a seventh contempt motion alleging new works (ditches, ponds, pipelines, dredging, placement of boulders) that violated the 2013 Order.
After a two-day evidentiary hearing the water court found the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt the 2013 Order existed, Sease knew of it, had ability to comply, and willfully violated it by performing or authorizing the contested work. The court imposed punitive (jail time and fine) and remedial sanctions; Sease appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether there was sufficient evidence that Sease owns the Sease Ranch such that ownership supports inferring he caused or authorized the contemptuous work	The State relied on Sease’s prior admissions, stipulations, orders, and documentary/testimonial evidence showing ownership; ownership supports a commonsense inference he caused or authorized the work	Sease argued there was no evidence at the contempt hearing proving he owns the ranch and that ownership alone cannot prove he performed or authorized the acts	Court held prior judicial admissions, stipulations, orders, and documents established ownership; ownership was a proper basis for a reasonable circumstantial inference that Sease (or his agents) performed/authorized the work
Whether the court improperly shifted the burden of proof to Sease by noting absence of evidence that a third party performed the work	The State maintained burden remained on it; the court’s comment considered and rejected the alternate hypothesis because defense presented no such evidence	Sease argued the court’s remark effectively required him to prove someone else did the work	Court held no burden shift occurred: the court repeatedly placed and kept burden on the State; it permissibly relied on circumstantial evidence and the improbability that an unknown third party would have done extensive paid work on Sease’s property without evidence

People v. Aleem, 149 P.3d 765 (Colo. 2007) (courts possess inherent contempt authority to protect their dignity and function)
People v. Vaughn, 135 P.3d 721 (Colo. 2006) (upholding landowner responsibility based on circumstantial evidence and improbability of alternate uses going unnoticed)
In re Marriage of Nussbeck, 974 P.2d 493 (Colo. 1999) (punitive contempt elements and beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard)
People v. Bennett, 515 P.2d 466 (Colo. 1973) (rejecting earlier rule requiring exclusion of every other reasonable hypothesis for circumstantial evidence)
Kempter v. Hurd, 713 P.2d 1274 (Colo. 1986) (judicial admissions are binding and dispense with proof of the admitted facts)
Salazar v. American Sterilizer Co., 5 P.3d 357 (Colo. App. 2000) (judicial admissions are evidence against the party and binding in the action)