Sisters v. ACM
23CA2129
| Colo. Ct. App. | Sep 19, 2024
Opinion Summary

Facts

  1. Quantez Wilcox shot Keshawn Turner during an argument involving Wilcox's ex-girlfriend, Doniesha Monroe, who subsequently identified him to police [lines="54-65"].
  2. After the shooting, Wilcox fled the scene while Monroe was questioned by police at the scene, with her statements recorded on body-camera [lines="67-88"].
  3. Wilcox was indicted on multiple felony counts, and the trial court admitted Monroe's body-camera statements into evidence despite her not appearing in court to testify [lines="90-98"].
  4. The First District reversed Wilcox’s murder conviction, concluding that the admission of the body-camera footage violated his right to confrontation [lines="100-102"].
  5. The State argued the body-camera footage contained both nontestimonial and testimonial statements, but the First District solely focused on the Confrontation Clause without addressing the hearsay issues [lines="146-147"].

Issues

  1. Whether the statements recorded on the body-camera footage during the police questioning were testimonial or nontestimonial, impacting Wilcox's right to confrontation [lines="155-161"].
  2. Whether the admission of Monroe's statements into evidence, particularly those made post-apprehension, violated Wilcox's right to confront his accuser [lines="181-182"].

Holdings

  1. The court held that the initial statements made by Monroe were nontestimonial because they were made in response to an ongoing emergency situation, thus not violating the Confrontation Clause [lines="337-341"].
  2. The court affirmed the First District's ruling regarding the admission of Monroe's post-apprehension statements as testimonial, thereby necessitating reconsideration regarding their potential impact and admissibility [lines="348-350"].

OPINION

<div><div><div><div id="pdf-container" style="width: 782px">
<div id="pf1" data-page-no="1">
<div><div>
<div>23CA2129 Sisters v ACM 09-19-2024 </div>
<div> </div>
<div>COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Court of Appeals No. 23CA2129 </div>
<div>City and County of Denver District Court No. 22CV31321 </div>
<div>Honorable Martin F. Egelhoff, Judge </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Sisters of Color United for Education, d/b/a HEAL Denver, a Colorado </div>
<div>nonprofit corporation, </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Plaintiff-Appellee, </div>
<div> </div>
<div>v. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>ACM Park Hill JV VII, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, </div>
<div> <span> </span> </div>
<div>Defendant-Appellant. </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>ORDER AFFIRMED </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Division VII </div>
<div>Opinion by JUDGE SCHUTZ </div>
<div>Tow and Pawar, JJ., concur </div>
<div> </div>
<div>NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e) </div>
<div>Announced September 19, 2024 </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Achieve Law Group, LLC, Aaron A. Boschee, <span>Jerom</span>e A. DeHerrera, Benjamin P. </div>
<div>Meade, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellee </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Holley, Albertson &amp; Polk, P.C., Dennis B. Polk, <span>Eric E. To</span><span>r</span><span>gersen, Lakewood, </span>
</div>
<div>Colorado, for Defendant-Appellant</div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf2" data-page-no="2">
<div>
<img alt="" src="https://icbg.s3.amazonaws.com/media/MM9/Zgu/MM9ZguMTW/pwsU7Hj38Z0aT83wGmUtrM/47S7PRRijEBs%3D?AWSAccessKeyId=ASIA5PHC3MTP3ZLG2LMQ&amp;Expires=1727632981&amp;Signature=Z9BN6sXjgTahkKXSEVYxHnDg9NE%3D&amp;x-amz-security-token=IQoJb3JpZ2luX2VjEBkaCXVzLWVhc3QtMSJIMEYCIQDF0HvAVuWBdLhUbYih684HG9QSy8p5nisa1dwsQy8NpAIhAJnrE%2BRqOmcM2N9%2FYBr6qD6lDCHICclI%2FLJxPQmQjbP2KrIFCGEQABoMOTI2MDQxMjAzOTM1Igwb6pLdVxYhKZGzF4cqjwWODSd93JrMc8fcRR2KrFnHvId0Klc5lJKjhSso%2FyRPpxXj2AzsuTLGxCSezAJrSJFzOljtdTxVY95Up96gqqSKu6Xc%2BwHBTYcxkMxiIYJfqRbjrhwMgX7pICt4S64924NUPcOep2ldITPY5zBvEpM7ikxUuTLTV5coinoDZyagEphPyCPV1OSDtdRbFBmZ76eAOESNs6%2FTKZj5OqXPryPAgtp6kAwEGNAowpiH5zayAX5N3dzYnneobq54OLwvBDBu075Dv17cYTVPCtSwMf9Qb8WXSMhGU1Ar83dalrMx9kvq%2B11kwmbUsX5kBsNDb%2FlCLwJHHexDLDKFhKqZ6SwqrhgRiO7GiakmFpJ4U6H0AGtKFO9%2B1A7E1UZ67fB5X4OdT19s5fv8hGwto1gcoorbJoTgQ2lVxLhRpJw9R4wLZV7QY3iMey3j12RlYDimpmgbAKdF6K1HOn7vk04GnIa7mA9ijzkzo26Wtc6%2FgB0%2BCbrAgGbCG%2F5EqcxFAnIC4XwNf2v7oaVrnyJFYClQ6ZrppMbVyO2xQetkGvbjT9kxmkjsojDV2Ht7v8mf2JCRxO2ZIlAdMSKn98xoPUcJ7EhzwXuBFuTRdytnj2iutnjRkDSaH5OdlU%2BvfL5IpWDgPe1eXtKTQTdQKWsBwhrXj3vLIrDrcUx6f4QpFdzAUsMW58Y109wevLFWUomsfq5g3kFV3ehH0E4XmaHmmT29%2Fof7SjnNSU3ItsdAoW%2FlEi0xrTMSyZC01GEQk66Bykoyow0fU9Mz4k4sfJ8fHKuLIaNhKohpa6LxVM%2B7X5Z0i9Qwwg%2F7SiEJB%2FHMHQI4B4Fjon9cKvdGV90bL5eNISYXKSzx78jfzn0udA3ER1eWoc%2B1MPP35bcGOrABQdkcaGYgx2DI9x8uguYI8%2FDHn5lRGSHU53NN3V8Anw%2FU4nBfrEUBfhpPVOwWO8wh6rDTSWRh4tTUA3xm7SaUPlEZrSSSJRP3MDojPTt2GHdT1DLpo3il4G%2BLyIbfn3V5%2B0RLic%2BpWOTAK7maMIwy1SWK47drR%2Fomm4Ca4oPcm0cLwHgGYAYOzXJzTxfJApFSDXfaFFpk1ox5ke5bAi94S%2FhGAou%2BnrIklctBBv0otX0%3D"><div>
<div>1 </div>
<div>¶ 1<span> </span><span>Defendant, ACM Park Hill JV VII, LLC (ACM), appeals the trial </span>
</div>
<div>court’s order<span>s granting plaintiff, Sisters of Color United for </span>
</div>
<div>Education, d/b/a HEAL Denver (Sisters of Color), costs and </div>
<div>prejudgment interest<span>. </span> We affirm the awards of both costs and </div>
<div>prejudgment interest. </div>
<div>I.<span> <span>Background </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 2<span> </span><span>Sisters of Color entered into a lease with ACM, which included </span>
</div>
<div>Sisters of Color paying for the construction of substant<span></span>ial </div>
<div>improvements to the leased property.</div>
</div>
<div><div>1</div></div>
<div>
<div>  <span>In a separate appeal, Case </span>
</div>
<div>No. 23CA1785, we set forth the circumstances surrounding <span></span>the </div>
<div>parties’<span> dispute and affirm the trial <span>court’s </span>judgment in favor of </span>
</div>
<div>Sisters of Color on its unjust enrichment claim. </div>
<div>¶ 3<span> </span><span>After entering judgment, the trial court awarded Sisters of </span>
</div>
<div>Color its reasonable costs incurred in litigation and prejudgment<span></span> </div>
<div>interest<span>. <span> ACM appeals both awards. </span></span>
</div>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div><div>1</div></div>
<div>
<div> Holleran Property Management &amp; Development, LLC was also a </div>
<div>defendant at trial<span>.  Holleran does not appeal the lower court’s </span>
</div>
<div>orders. </div>
</div>
<a href="#pf2" data-dest-detail='[2,"XYZ",69,121,null]'><div style="border-style:none;position:absolute;left:414.690000px;bottom:545.138333px;width:10.080000px;height:32.870000px;background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0.000001);"></div></a>
</div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf3" data-page-no="3">
<div><div>
<div>2 </div>
<div>II.<span> <span>Analysis </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 4<span> </span><span>Sisters of Color timely sought an award of costs under section </span>
</div>
<div>13<span>-<span>16<span>-104, C.R.S. 2024, and C.R.C.P. 54(d).  Sisters of Color als<span></span>o </span></span></span>
</div>
<div>sought a prejudgment interest award under section 5-<span>12</span><span>-102(1)</span><span>, </span>
</div>
<div>C.R.S. 2024<span>.  </span>ACM did not respond to either motion. </div>
<div>¶ 5<span> </span><span>The trial court awarded Sisters of Color $25,801.61 in costs </span>
</div>
<div>and $36,903.07 in prejudgment interest.  <span>The sole basis of ACM’s </span>
</div>
<div>challenge to both awards is its contention that if we reve<span></span>rse the trial </div>
<div>court’s entry of judgment on the unjust enrichment claim, t<span></span>hen </div>
<div>Sisters of Color will no longer be the prevailing party and hence </div>
<div>without a legal basis to recover costs and prejudgment interest. </div>
<div>¶ 6<span> </span><span>C.R.C.P. 54(d) provides that <span>“reasonable costs shall be allowed </span></span>
</div>
<div>as of course to the prevailing party.”<span>  <span>Section 5-<span>12</span><span>-102(1<span>)(</span></span>a) allows </span></span>
</div>
<div>for the award of prejudgment interest and controls in a claim that </div>
<div>does not involve <span>a </span>personal injury.  <span>M.G. Dyess, Inc. v. MarkWest </span>
</div>
<div>Liberty Midstream &amp; Res., LLC<span>,
2022 COA 108
, ¶ <span>36.</span> </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 7<span> </span><span>The court awarded Sisters of Color costs and prejudgment </span>
</div>
<div>interest because it prevailed on its unjust enrichment claim.<span>  <span>ACM </span></span>
</div>
<div>does not contend that the trial court awarded Sisters of Color an </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf4" data-page-no="4">
<div><div>
<div>3 </div>
<div>unreasonable amount of costs or that it miscalculated prejudgment </div>
<div>interest. </div>
<div>¶ 8<span> </span><span>We agree with ACM that if the underlying judgment in Case </span>
</div>
<div>No. 23CA1785 had been reversed, then the award of costs and </div>
<div>prejudgment interest would also need to be reversed.  However, we </div>
<div>have affirmed the trial court’s order in Case No. 23CA17<span></span>85<span>.  </span>
</div>
<div>Therefore<span>, <span>ACM has asserted no grounds for overturning the <span></span>trial </span></span>
</div>
<div>court’s <span>order. </span>
</div>
<div>III.<span> <span>Disposition </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 9<span> </span><span>We affirm the trial <span>court’s</span> orders awarding Sisters of Color </span>
</div>
<div>costs and prejudgment interest. </div>
<div>JUDGE <span>TOW</span> and JUDGE PAWAR concur. </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
</div></div></div></div>