v. People
2019 CO 95
Colo.2019Background
- Walton pled guilty to DUI and received 12 months unsupervised probation.
- During presentence evaluation she disclosed a state medical marijuana registry card; defense later produced the card and supporting documents but no treating medical professional to testify.
- The county court (following a standing policy) required a medical professional’s testimony to permit medical-marijuana use on probation and, when none was produced, imposed a probation condition prohibiting medical marijuana.
- The district court affirmed the county court, accepting the standing policy as reasonable for verifying authorization and reducing recidivism risk.
- Colorado Supreme Court granted certiorari, addressing statutory interpretation of § 18-1.3-204(2)(a)(VIII) and whether the county court’s prohibition was supported by required findings and evidence.
- The Supreme Court held the statute creates a presumption that authorized medical-marijuana use is permitted on probation, places the burden to rebut that presumption on the prosecution, and requires particularized, material-evidence-based findings tied to sentencing goals before prohibiting use; the county court made no such findings, so the district court’s affirmance was disapproved.
Issues
| Issue | Walton's Argument | People’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 18-1.3-204(2)(a)(VIII) permits authorized medical-marijuana use on probation absent exception | Statute creates a presumption permitting authorized use; court cannot prohibit absent an applicable exception | Court may impose conditions of probation, including prohibition, to ensure public safety and appropriate sentencing | The statute’s plain language creates a presumption that authorized use is allowed; prohibition requires an enumerated exception |
| Who bears the burden to justify prohibiting authorized medical marijuana on probation | Burden should be on the prosecution to rebut the presumption | County court’s practice placed burden on defendant to produce medical testimony | Burden to overcome presumption falls on the prosecution to point to material evidence supporting prohibition |
| What findings are required to impose a prohibition condition | Any prohibition must be based on material evidence and particularized findings showing necessity and appropriateness to accomplish statutory sentencing goals | General or categorical concerns (e.g., DUI program suitability) suffice | Court must make findings, based on material evidence, showing the prohibition is necessary and appropriate to accomplish the sentencing goals for that defendant |
| Whether a blanket policy requiring medical professional testimony is permissible | Such a policy imposes a greater burden than the statute allows and violates individualized sentencing | Policy is reasonable to verify authorization, ensure consistency, and reduce recidivism | A blanket policy is inconsistent with the statute; courts must assess each defendant’s circumstances and make particularized findings |
Key Cases Cited
- Riley v. People, 104 P.3d 218 (Colo. 2004) ("shall" is mandatory absent clear contrary indication)
- People v. Brockelman, 933 P.2d 1315 (Colo. 1997) (mootness exception for issues capable of repetition yet evading review)
- People v. Quinonez, 735 P.2d 159 (Colo. 1987) (mootness doctrine discussion)
- People v. Juvenile Ct., 893 P.2d 81 (Colo. 1995) (presumptions and burden to go forward under CRE 301)
- People v. Padilla, 907 P.2d 601 (Colo. 1995) (individualized sentencing tailored to defendant’s circumstances)
- Greene v. State, 186 A.3d 207 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2018) (use of "unless" creates statutory exception)