2019 CO 48
Colo.2019Background
- Defendant Morehead was convicted of drug-possession, possession with intent to distribute, and gambling offenses; he moved to suppress evidence seized from his residence.
- Officers entered the residence without a warrant with consent from Morehead's former girlfriend, observed gambling devices, then obtained a warrant (relying on the girlfriend's statements and surveillance) and seized drugs and gambling evidence.
- Trial court held the girlfriend had actual and apparent authority to consent, found the warrant supported by probable cause, and denied suppression after multiple hearings with detailed findings.
- Colorado Court of Appeals reversed, concluding the girlfriend lacked consent authority, ordered suppression of all residence-derived evidence, and barred the trial court on remand from considering the prosecution’s new arguments (e.g., attenuation, independent-source, or inevitable-discovery exceptions).
- The People sought certiorari limited to whether the court of appeals properly restricted the trial court’s discretion to consider new arguments/evidence on retrial; the Colorado Supreme Court granted review.
- The Supreme Court reversed the appellate court’s restriction, holding trial courts retain discretion on remand to consider new arguments/evidence (subject to law-of-the-case limits); it left the consent ruling undisturbed as law of the case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court of appeals could prohibit the prosecution from presenting new arguments/evidence on remand regarding admissibility of seized evidence | People: trial court on remand should be free to consider additional arguments and evidence relevant to suppression | Morehead: prosecution had full opportunity at initial suppression hearings; allowing relitigation unfairly gives a second bite | Held: Reversed appellate restriction; trial court has discretion on remand to consider new arguments/evidence (unless bound by law of the case) |
| Whether the girlfriend had actual or apparent authority to consent to entry | People: girlfriend had actual/apparent authority; entry lawful | Morehead: girlfriend lacked authority; entry unlawful | Held: Court did not review this issue on certiorari; appellate court’s conclusion that consent lacked authority remains law of the case (not disturbed) |
| Whether evidence seized pursuant to a later warrant is admissible if initial entry was unlawful (independent-source/attenuation inquiry) | People: the later warrant was supported by independent sources and seizure may be independent or otherwise admissible under exceptions | Morehead: seizure tainted by unlawful entry and thus fruit of illegal search | Held: Whether the later warrant search was independent requires trial-court fact-finding on whether officers would have sought the warrant absent the entry; trial court may address this on remand |
| Scope of law-of-the-case and mandate rule on remand (can appellate rulings limit what can be argued on retrial?) | People: law-of-the-case does not preclude trial court from reconsidering suppression issues and admitting new arguments/evidence where appropriate | Morehead: appellate ruling on suppression should bind trial court on remand; prosecution cannot relitigate waived arguments | Held: Law-of-the-case binds issues decided on appeal, but does not bar trial-court discretion to entertain new arguments/evidence on retrial; appellate court exceeded authority by forbidding consideration of new arguments |
Key Cases Cited
- Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533 (1988) (independent-source and attenuation analysis for evidence discovered after unlawful entry)
- Shotwell Mfg. Co. v. United States, 355 U.S. 233 (1957) (approving limited remand for additional evidence where prosecution may offer same evidence at retrial)
- People v. Roybal, 672 P.2d 1003 (Colo. 1983) (law-of-the-case principle binding trial courts on remand absent unusual circumstances)
- People v. Cunningham, 314 P.3d 1289 (Colo. 2013) (Crim. P. 41 suppression hearing burdens and trial-court discretion in managing hearings)
- People v. Schoondermark, 759 P.2d 715 (Colo. 1988) (application of Murray and requirement for trial-court findings on whether later warrant was prompted by unlawful entry)