holding that where provisions of death penalty statute were declared unconstitutional after murder committed, as long as at the time of the alleged offense defendant had “fair warning” that first degree murder conviction could result in death penalty, application of death penalty statute did not violate ex post facto clause
How later courts described this case
- holding that where provisions of death penalty statute were declared unconstitutional after murder committed, as long as at the time of the alleged offense defendant had “fair warning” that first degree murder conviction could result in death penalty, application of death penalty statute did not violate ex post facto clause
- noting that there has been a death penalty in Colorado since 1861, with the exception of a brief interruption between 1897 and 1901
- "To determine whether to apply the revival doctrine, the test of legislative intent was invoked ... ."
- noting that the Dobbert Court held that changes in the law that are procedural do not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Justice QUINN
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I concur only in Part II of the court’s opinion on the issue of revival, and I join Justice Lohr’s dissent in its entirety on all other issues. Because I would affirm the rulings of the district court, I find no reason to address the issues in Part IV of the court’s opinion, which I do not join.