[{"_1":2,"_112":-5,"_113":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6120014,"mediaKeyId","2709601-4d7b82f064040114857c4cc32256c446","parentId",2709601,"title","Sponsors seek technical fix so juries, not judges, decide certain habitual‑offender findings","audioSeconds",2475,"startMs",7755000,"endMs",10230000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2709601-4d7b82f064040114857c4cc32256c446&start=7755&end=10230","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2709601-4d7b82f064040114857c4cc32256c446/thumbnail_7755000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6120014/Colorado/Sponsors-seek-technical-fix-so-juries-not-judges-decide-certain-habitualoffender-findings","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6120014-336452fdef37a3626dc00967c0a17e12/orig.mp4?Expires=1771052802&Signature=SoCS7UQduz5voKj3SWsjXxbPA2N95ifn2QRM9P~Vy6dcm5hZrK6XGHs3wDgw4ToMyVOoVf5kQw6Un5AbYRAvHEaJ6XGtYO3M3vhMC7G~9o9i48dqFasBJ7A-Q7iho~pzh-OsB5JlExJfIpIN2VgNrD-PGAQgay-5Z4xv4ZQh4y1yXX9Xs5bTLqNkym8h-XhE~pJDJP1oARKkBXCq-wNLkNlBivAWxn1z9~~~wOJqvBJeC-WgonUMdW-98DjU~YVhvtYkOH693laPUqRHQudGPy-euMlAVhSXontQJaji-I10I1zqQ7bEegt~RvFHYmUJ8kpA1v8jqs~oZ7y74JuPcA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Colorado State Legislature","date","2025-03-17T00:00:00Z","article","Senate Bill 189, a procedural change prompted by the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Erlinger (discussed in committee as \"Erlanger v. United States\"), was the final item on the Judiciary Committee’s March 7 agenda. Sponsors said the bill is a technical fix that would require juries to decide factual questions that increase a defendant’s penalty under Colorado’s habitual‑offender statute.

Senator Snyder, a sponsor, summarized the issue for the committee: \"In 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Fifth and Sixth Amendments require a jury finding to determine whether a defendant's prior offenses were committed on separate occasions.\" Senator Liston said the change is intended to avoid constitutional error and to prevent automatic reversals of habitual sentences on appeal.

The measure drew both support and opposition. The Colorado Criminal Defense Bar (CCDB) and the Office of the State Public Defender told the committee they support jury findings in habitual proceedings but oppose the habitual‑offender framework itself and urged broader sentencing reform. Gail Johnson of the CCDB said the organization would prefer abolishing the enhancement or reducing mandatory penalties and restoring judicial discretion; she provided examples of individuals serving very long mandatory habitual sentences for nonviolent conduct that predated present-day sentencing classifications.

Officials from the Attorney General’s Office supported the procedural fix as necessary to align Colorado statutes with Erlinger, and agency counsel urged the committee to pass the bill to give trial courts clear procedures and avoid inconsistent district‑court practices. The attorney general’s witnesses described cases where trial courts had impaneled juries or attempted different remedies to comply with the federal decision.

Sponsors asked the committee to lay the bill over for one week to draft clarifying language and to address technical issues the public defender and appellate counsel raised — for example, the bill’s references to a “sentencing hearing” that will now function as a trial and the statute’s procedures for prosecutors who discover additional prior convictions after a trial.

The committee granted the sponsors’ request and laid Senate Bill 189 over for action on March 20 to permit additional drafting and stakeholder negotiation.

Votes at a glance: Senate Bill 189 — laid over for action (sponsor-requested layover to March 20).","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Senate Judiciary [Mar 17, 2025]","oneSentenceSummary","Senate Bill 189, prompted by a 2024 U.S. Supreme Court decision, would require juries to decide factual questions beyond the mere existence of prior convictions in habitual‑offender proceedings; sponsors asked for one week to refine technical language.","taxTitle","Judiciary, Standing Committees, Senate, Committees, Legislative, Colorado","taxId",43555,"location","Colorado","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6120023,"Committee approves bill to require Colorado law enforcement to honor tribal warrants and commitment orders",5414,1023000,6437000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2709601-4d7b82f064040114857c4cc32256c446&start=1023&end=6437","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2709601-4d7b82f064040114857c4cc32256c446/thumbnail_1023000.jpg","/articles/6120023/Colorado/Committee-approves-bill-to-require-Colorado-law-enforcement-to-honor-tribal-warrants-and-commitment-orders","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6120023-a6f12a585a952b766e2e1e33bf058d58/orig.mp4?Expires=1771052802&Signature=e38-60h3b8XmDZiOMcthT4VtnfsCDryZhQg2IuNYvFPbBkQrvF5fHrKb7wXHq22Id-lI0YxbjQWiSWUoj23Wh8Q9lReHTJM4gv9GS0AXs7dq8OwlwBvF8I6ZWranfaK5u5ZYVMXkCGQWauGC7BL6xJaHxCph44T-3i~MNjxo8T1bPrAZz~IBOF2wXhQ2IeXV~Ks6pXqH~cDzjpGzU2Ap6i2GTihcSciYgXty6mbinQ5R~m29nq1olZuR6ustEOtXG2j8DtRsSmGWXnoL7p-Cz486dXJttPf8lCJ33y9eiP6NCc97RWC6ueGK3lKPzq1cqz4L2cE1ECJRllH255qJuA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Senate Judiciary Committee on March 7 advanced Senate Bill 9 after adopting amendments that broaden the bill to cover certain orders from federally recognized tribes outside Colorado and that add procedural safeguards for law enforcement.

Senator Roberts, a bill sponsor, told the committee the measure requires Colorado law enforcement to notify the issuing tribal jurisdiction when officers encounter a person subject to a tribal arrest warrant or civil commitment order and to give the tribe an opportunity to take custody. \"Essentially what this bill means is that if somebody who has a warrant out for their arrest from one of our tribal nations in Colorado or elsewhere in the United States ... that they need to contact the original warrant jurisdiction,\" Roberts said.

Vice Chairman Marvin Pinnacus of the Southern Ute Indian Tribe, who testified in person, said the change addresses a persistent problem where officers and facilities outside the reservation sometimes refuse or hesitate to accept tribal orders. \"This bill solves a problem that has existed for decades,\" Pinnacus said, adding that prompt recognition of tribal warrants and commitment orders helps ensure public safety and that tribal members “are treated the same as other Colorado citizens.”

Witnesses who supported the bill included representatives of the Southern Ute and Ute Mountain Ute tribes and the League of Women Voters of Colorado. The Colorado Association of Chiefs of Police supported the bill with an amendment limiting its scope; the chiefs asked the committee to narrow the list of tribal jurisdictions the bill covers to tribes with on‑reservation boundaries inside Colorado to avoid impractical obligations for law enforcement receiving orders from distant tribes.

Senator Danielson and others noted that the bill and its amendments were drafted with tribal input and with attention to coordination across jurisdictions. The committee adopted an amendment (L003) that references eligibility under federal recognition lists and another amendment (L3/L002) that detailed procedures for verifying and enforcing tribal warrants and commitment orders, including extradition and bail considerations.

The committee voted to advance Senate Bill 9 by a vote of 7–0, and sponsors asked that the bill be placed on the consent calendar.

Votes at a glance: Senate Bill 9 — advanced from committee 7–0 (committee vote recorded on March 7).","The Senate Judiciary Committee on March 7 advanced Senate Bill 9 after adopting amendments that broaden the bill to cover certain orders from federally recognized tribes and add procedural safeguards for law enforcement.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6120027,"Senate committee backs bill to restore tort remedies for first-time homebuyers",4386,131000,4517000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2709601-4d7b82f064040114857c4cc32256c446&start=131&end=4517","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2709601-4d7b82f064040114857c4cc32256c446/thumbnail_131000.jpg","/articles/6120027/Colorado/Senate-committee-backs-bill-to-restore-tort-remedies-for-first-time-homebuyers","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6120027-6f42ac71308b5e0fd8967987d1b4375a/orig.mp4?Expires=1771052802&Signature=er7eFiPoC3TC8JrLwXbXLszj1pTmydWttxRI720jPTHGxnLJ1i89TciGFnXkvnOnwqEKV4yF526hWwTE90BgWJ3RqhLsrHy2HmcMqLB1~-w0PA3yDsNkduLt7LxjIQscSQmpfm3ZSVwu9XK~SKxoY9YtMQnK5D7f~xcjdgIlV4OT8ovtKlJvRqx44eC0xQeU0T3njOpclNv33Cf0FqjnJmCkuFjlEV7DPrlWWI7R1eGSS0rPBmpbdcsjvhQFCIWoJn7Hp5b-yx~IVaXHEHiNnFeJjjC2JbTTwIJVtIwrqP3w6T53hU8vqcu9N57nT-vFSK8sEsrsNuXat~f~MmZRLA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Senate Bill 185, which would confirm that construction professionals owe an independent duty of care to both original and subsequent homebuyers, was advanced out of the Colorado Senate Judiciary Committee on March 7 after a 4-3 vote.

Supporters, including bill sponsors and attorneys representing homeowners and builders, argued the measure simply restores the status quo after a Colorado Court of Appeals decision they called Appleby disrupted prior practice. Senator Peltonbee, a bill sponsor, told the committee the bill responds to Appleby by restoring “the assumption that construction professionals owe an independent duty of care for original and subsequent homeowners.” Shane Fleener, an attorney who represents homeowners, said Senate Bill 185 “essentially confirms the status quo” and that the change would allow builders and design professionals to obtain insurance that typically covers negligence but not contractual claims.

The bill’s backers said the Colorado economic loss rule prevents negligence claims unless an independent tort duty exists. They argued that without statutory clarification, initial purchasers could be limited to contractual remedies, which many construction professionals’ insurance policies do not cover. David MacLean, an attorney representing home builders and developers, said the legislation “ensures that construction professionals owe an independent duty to both original and subsequent home buyers,” and cited Colorado Supreme Court precedent dating back to Cosmopolitan Homes v. Weller.

Opponents — a group that included structural and civil engineering firms, architects and trade associations — warned that imposing expanded tort exposure on engineers and architects would increase risk, push up insurance costs, discourage firms from working on residential projects and ultimately reduce housing supply. Aaron Mosby, a licensed professional engineer, told the committee his firm opposes the bill because “this heightened risk would lead to higher insurance premiums and overall project costs, which would be passed along to the homeowners.” Robbie Gammon, structural engineer, and Michael Pazas, president of an engineering firm, expressed similar concerns about market exit by smaller firms and higher prices for buyers.

Architects and engineers also told the committee many small residential projects have very small design fees, and they rely on negotiated contract language to allocate and limit risk. Nicholas Remus of the American Institute of Architects of Colorado said the bill would “drag architects and engineers unfairly into more lawsuits,” raise fees and reduce small-project capacity. Dan Woodward, an attorney who represented a structural engineer in the Appleby case, testified in opposition and argued Appleby applied existing precedent rather than creating new law.

Committee members asked about practical consequences, including whether insurers will respond and whether contractual privity leaves homeowners without relief from noncontracting construction professionals. Witnesses disagreed about Appleby’s scope and whether arbitration trends made legislative clarification urgent. Sponsor Senator Rodriguez told the committee the bill is a ‘‘simple fix’’ intended to protect first-time homebuyers by restoring remedies.

After public and expert testimony and an amendment offered by the sponsors (L2), the committee adopted the amendment and voted to advance the bill. The committee record shows a final committee vote tally of 4 to 3 in favor of moving the bill out of committee.

Votes at a glance: Senate Bill 185 — advanced from committee 4–3 (committee vote recorded on March 7).","Senate Bill 185, which would confirm that construction professionals owe an independent duty of care to both original and subsequent homebuyers, was advanced out of the Colorado Senate Judiciary Committee on March 7 after a 4-3 vote.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6120018,"Bill would make state laws presumptively inapplicable to tribal lands unless the law says otherwise",712,6969000,7681000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2709601-4d7b82f064040114857c4cc32256c446&start=6969&end=7681","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2709601-4d7b82f064040114857c4cc32256c446/thumbnail_6969000.jpg","/articles/6120018/Colorado/Bill-would-make-state-laws-presumptively-inapplicable-to-tribal-lands-unless-the-law-says-otherwise","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6120018-6e15a753d038d5c0c17af57d727af9bf/orig.mp4?Expires=1771052802&Signature=byKaRLa9uzLv5wSwZMQQjMXFkeZ2ssQ1GH44xcZT3fVV0UV1-AnE1MB2yFmNLFg0mEOIV6qUUUk--HreHS19Hx-dmJw~gi2mIzoD-5EfIRWX5GIvLK5~vGJAxiVs88J1SGcJD3YCtOih1~XdljCLfKpxsOUolRMFuWWE4TvRpz4-Sh8-P6NSFHoDZs8hrpPyGV4afYv~zuQq18FtcUdGqnKQWfEKMVv4qa9zjjtcg1nQI1HR-Y22fH8nfI5kIepkp~eirVE~EPcIB1qNerzz7N6K1snei5xQykmBGuzT9n57lpcLrnyluuBVCVc4303jwnXhuCn8k1oZCYbegEJJPg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Senate Bill 61 passed the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 7 with unanimous support after sponsors and tribal leaders negotiated clarifying amendments.

Sponsor Senator Simpson said the measure creates a rule of statutory construction: when the state passes a law that purports to apply statewide, courts should presume it does not apply to a tribe or tribal entities on tribal lands unless the statute explicitly mentions the tribe or tribal land. \"The rule says that when the state passes a law that purports to apply to all actors in all lands statewide, that law would be presumed not to apply to the tribe or our tribally controlled entities operating on our tribal lands, unless the law expressly mentions the tribe or its lands,\" Vice Chairman Pinnacus testified on behalf of the Southern Ute Tribe.

Pinnacus and Senator Simpson said the change merely preserves existing jurisdictional boundaries under federal Indian law; it does not alter criminal jurisdiction or expand sovereign immunity. The Southern Ute Tribe outlined that tribal government and federal law already regulate many reservation matters and said the statutory presumption would reduce the need to negotiate individual statutory carve-outs for dozens of bills every session.

Senator Simpson said the bill was drafted with input from La Plata County and the two tribes and that amendments (L1 and L2) clarified the text, narrowed the rule’s application where appropriate and incorporated agreed drafting points. La Plata County representatives worked with tribal counsel to find language both sides could accept, the sponsor said.

The committee adopted the agreed amendments and voted 7–0 to advance the bill. Sponsor and tribal representatives asked that the bill be placed on the consent calendar for floor consideration.

Votes at a glance: Senate Bill 61 — advanced from committee 7–0 (committee vote recorded on March 7).","Senate Bill 61, supported by both Ute nations and La Plata County after negotiated amendments, would direct courts to presume state statutes do not apply on tribal lands unless the statute explicitly references the tribe or its land. Advocates said the change reduces recurring jurisdictional conflicts and the need for case-by-case carve-outs.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Sponsors seek technical fix so juries, not judges, decide certain habitual‑offender findings

Committee approves bill to require Colorado law enforcement to honor tribal warrants and commitment orders

Senate committee backs bill to restore tort remedies for first-time homebuyers

Bill would make state laws presumptively inapplicable to tribal lands unless the law says otherwise