interpretation rule in Colorado

2025R-1, 2020 COA 27M , ¶ 51 (quoting Churchey v. Adolph Coors Co., 759 P.2d 1336, 1340 (Colo. 1988)), aff’d on other grounds, 2021 CO 57 . ¶ 18 The interpretation of when a claim accrues under a statute of limitations is an issue of law that we review de novo.

2024R-1, 2020 COA 27M , ¶ 51 (quoting Churchey v. Adolph Coors Co., 759 P.2d 1336, 1340 (Colo. 1988)), aff’d on other grounds, 2021 CO 57 . ¶ 10 The interpretation of when a claim accrues under a statute of limitations is an issue of law that we review de novo.

2012To defer to the agency's position [on an unambiguous regulation] would be to permit the agency, under the guise of interpreting a regulation, to create de facto a new regulation."); Sterra Club v. Billingsley, 166 P.3d 309, 312 (Colo.App.2007) (noting that we give "great deference" to an agency's interpretation of a rule it is charged with enfore-ing if the language of that rule is ambiguous or unclear); Tebbetts v. Whitson, 956 P.2d 639, 641 (Colo.App.1997) (no deference is given when an agency's interpretation is inconsistent with its own rules). 126 Here, as noted above, the Board's interpr

2008"If the language of an administrative rule is ambiguous or unclear, we give great deference to an agency's interpretation of a rule it is charged with enforcing. ..." Sierra Club v. Billingsley, 166 P.3d 309, 312 (Colo.App.2007). "[ Wle generally accept that interpretation if it has a reasonable basis in the law and is warranted by the record." Nededog v. Colo. Dep't of Health Care Policy & Fin., 98 P.3d 960, 962 (Colo.App.2004).

2026People v. Zhuk, 239 P.3d 437 , 438 9 (Colo. 2010).

2020See People v. Zhuk, 239 P.3d 437 , 438 2 We granted certiorari to review the following issue: Whether a voice recording may be admitted into evidence when there is no witness who can vouch for either the accuracy of the recording’s contents or the reliability of the recording process. 8 (Colo. 2010); People v. Reed, 216 P.3d 55, 56 (Colo. App. 2008).

2024Applicable Law ¶ 30 “The interpretation of when a claim accrues under a statute of limitations is an issue of law.” Sulca, 77 P.3d at 899 .

2024Applicable Law ¶ 30 “The interpretation of when a claim accrues under a statute of limitations is an issue of law.” Sulca , 77 P.3d at 899 .

2025“Thus, absent a recognized exception, juror testimony (through an affidavit or otherwise) is inadmissible to impeach a verdict.” People v. Archuleta, 2021 COA 49 , ¶ 20. ¶ 43 While we leave the decision whether to grant or deny a motion for a new trial to the trial court’s discretion, id. at ¶ 13, we review de novo the court’s interpretation of a rule of evidence, Gonzales v. People, 2020 CO 71, ¶ 26 . 3.

2024Gonzales v. People , 2020 CO 71, ¶ 26, 471 P.3d 1059, 1063 ("The interpretation of a rule of evidence is a question of law, which we review de novo."). ¶19 CRE 702, which governs expert testimony, provides, "If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the 11 evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise." ¶20 In Shreck , 22 P.3d at 77-79, we announced what we later described as a four-part test

2007See Rivera-Bottzeck v. Ortiz, 134 P.3d 517, 521 (Colo.App.2006); Fire House Car Wash, Inc. v. Bd. of Adjustment for Zoning Appeals, supra; Regents of Univ. of Colo. v. City & County of Denver, 929 P.2d 58, 61 (Colo.App.1996); see also Quaker Court Ltd.

2001Regents of University of Colorado v. City & County of Denver, 929 P.2d 58 (Colo.App.1996).

1988Department of Administration v. State Personnel Board, 703 P.2d 595 (Colo.App.1985).

1987See Department of Administration v. State Personnel Board, supra. The Board’s interpretation of its rule, as approved by this court, had the force and effect of law, and was therefore binding upon the University.

2025To the extent the court’s decision here involved the interpretation of a rule of criminal procedure, we review that question de novo “employing the ‘same interpretive rules applicable to statutory construction.’” People v. Bueno, 2018 CO 4, ¶ 18 (quoting People v. Corson, 2016 CO 33, ¶ 44 ). ¶8 A court abuses its discretion if its decision is manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable, or unfair, or is based on a misunderstanding or misapplication of the law.

2025People v. Senette, 2018 COA 105 , ¶ 8. “[A]n unreasoning and arbitrary insistence upon a trial date in the face of a justifiable request for delay can 4 amount to an abuse of discretion . . . .” People v. Hampton, 758 P.2d 1344, 1353 (Colo. 1988).

2025Pearson v. Kancilia, 70 P.3d 594, 598-99 (Colo. App. 2003). 29 or otherwise, upon [their] seclusion or solitude, and that such intrusion would be considered offensive by a reasonable person.” Doe v. High-Tech Inst., Inc., 972 P.2d 1060, 1065 (Colo. App. 1998). ¶ 77 The court’s interpretation of the claim is not supported by the relevant authority.

2025Pearson v. Kancilia, 70 P.3d 594, 598-99 (Colo. App. 2003). 29 or otherwise, upon [their] seclusion or solitude, and that such intrusion would be considered offensive by a reasonable person.” Doe v. High-Tech Inst., Inc., 972 P.2d 1060, 1065 (Colo. App. 1998). ¶ 77 The court’s interpretation of the claim is not supported by the relevant authority.

2024However, the interpretation of the rule of procedure on which such an order is grounded “is a question of law, which we review de novo.” Id. ¶35 In construing our rules of criminal procedure, we rely on “the same interpretive rules applicable to statutory construction.” Id. at ¶ 17, 277 P.3d at 235 (quoting People v. Fuqua, 764 P.2d 56, 58 (Colo. 1988)).

2024Gonzales v. People , 2020 CO 71 , ¶ 26 , 471 P.3d 1059 , 1063 ( "The interpretation of a rule of evidence is a question of law, which we review de novo." ) . ¶19 CRE 702, which governs expert testimony, provides, "If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise." ¶20 In Shreck , 22 P.3d at 77 -79 , we announced what we later described as a four-part

2024Gonzales v. People , 2020 CO 71, ¶ 26, 471 P.3d 1059, 1063 ("The interpretation of a rule of evidence is a question of law, which we review de novo."). ¶19 CRE 702, which governs expert testimony, provides, "If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the 11 evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise." ¶20 In Shreck , 22 P.3d at 77-79, we announced what we later described as a four-part test

2024Gonzales v. People , 2020 CO 71 , ¶ 26 , 471 P.3d 1059 , 1063 ( "The interpretation of a rule of evidence is a question of law, which we review de novo." ) . ¶19 CRE 702, which governs expert testimony, provides, "If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise." ¶20 In Shreck , 22 P.3d at 77 -79 , we announced what we later described as a four-part

2024Gonzales v. People , 2020 CO 71, ¶ 26, 471 P.3d 1059, 1063 ("The interpretation of a rule of evidence is a question of law, which we review de novo."). ¶19 CRE 702, which governs expert testimony, provides, "If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the 11 evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise." ¶20 In Shreck , 22 P.3d at 77-79, we announced what we later described as a four-part test

2024Gonzales v. People , 2020 CO 71, ¶ 26, 471 P.3d 1059, 1063 ("The interpretation of a rule of evidence is a question of law, which we review de novo."). ¶19 CRE 702, which governs expert testimony, provides, "If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the 11 evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise." ¶20 In Shreck , 22 P.3d at 77-79, we announced what we later described as a four-part test

2024Gonzales v. People , 2020 CO 71, ¶ 26, 471 P.3d 1059, 1063 ("The interpretation of a rule of evidence is a question of law, which we review de novo."). ¶19 CRE 702, which governs expert testimony, provides, "If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the 11 evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise." ¶20 In Shreck , 22 P.3d at 77-79, we announced what we later described as a four-part test

2020See, e.g., City of Manassa v. Ruff, 235 P.3d 1051 , 1056 n.4 (Colo. 2010); Mason v. People, 932 P.2d 1377, 1380 (Colo. 2005). ¶ 50 Accordingly, I would not depart from the Westar approach. ¶ 51 I respectfully disagree with the majority that the division in Platt v. Aspenwood Condo.

2020See People v. Zhuk, 239 P.3d 437 , 438 2 We granted certiorari to review the following issue: Whether a voice recording may be admitted into evidence when there is no witness who can vouch for either the accuracy of the recording’s contents or the reliability of the recording process. 8 (Colo. 2010); People v. Reed, 216 P.3d 55, 56 (Colo. App. 2008).

2020See, e.g., City of Manassa v. Ruff, 235 P.3d 1051 , 1056 n.4 (Colo. 2010); Mason v. People, 932 P.2d 1377, 1380 (Colo. 2005). ¶ 50 Accordingly, I would not depart from the Westar approach. ¶ 51 I respectfully disagree with the majority that the division in Platt v. Aspenwood Condo.

2014See Austine, 128 P.3d at 259-60 ; Stevens, 874 P.2d at 497-98 ; cf. Rifkin v. Steele Platt, 824 P.2d 32, 35 (Colo.App.1991) (in a breach of fiduciary duty action, the court awarded attorney fees based on a contractual provision, not based on a common-law exception for such actions). {22 Fourth, the most recent guidance from the supreme court reinforces a narrow interpretation of the exception by demanding a finding of a "breach of trust" before attorney fees may be awarded.

2014See Austine, 128 P.3d at 259-60 ; Stevens, 874 P.2d at 497-98 ; cf. Rifkin v. Steele Platt, 824 P.2d 32, 35 (Colo.App.1991) (in a breach of fiduciary duty action, the court awarded attorney fees based on a contractual provision, not based on a common-law exception for such actions). {22 Fourth, the most recent guidance from the supreme court reinforces a narrow interpretation of the exception by demanding a finding of a "breach of trust" before attorney fees may be awarded.

2013See City & Cnty. of Broomfield v. Farmers Reservoir & Irrigation Co., 239 P.3d 1270, 1275 (Colo.2010) (reviewing the interpretation of a rule of civil procedure de novo). ¶ 10 We also review the trial court’s decision to disqualify counsel for a conflict of interest.

2012To defer to the agency's position [on an unambiguous regulation] would be to permit the agency, under the guise of interpreting a regulation, to create de facto a new regulation."); Sterra Club v. Billingsley, 166 P.3d 309, 312 (Colo.App.2007) (noting that we give "great deference" to an agency's interpretation of a rule it is charged with enfore-ing if the language of that rule is ambiguous or unclear); Tebbetts v. Whitson, 956 P.2d 639, 641 (Colo.App.1997) (no deference is given when an agency's interpretation is inconsistent with its own rules). 126 Here, as noted above, the Board's interpr