author: CHIEF JUSTICE COATS delivered the Opinion of the Court. JUSTICE GABRIEL, concurring in part and dissenting in part.

text:
    Robert Keith RAY, Petitioner v. The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Respondent.
    Supreme Court Case No. 15SC268
    Supreme Court of Colorado.
    April 8, 2019 Rehearing Denied May 20, 2019
    Attorneys for Petitioner: Elisabeth Hunt, White, Boulder, Colorado, Johnson & Klein, PLLC, Gail K. Johnson, Eric K. Klein, Boulder, Colorado, The Noble Law Firm, LLC, Antony M. Noble, Lakewood, Colorado
    Attorneys for Respondent: Philip J. Weiser, Attorney General, John T. Lee, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Denver, Colorado
    En Banc
   CHIEF JUSTICE COATS delivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶1 Ray petitioned for review of the court of appeals' judgment affirming his convictions for attempted first degree murder, first degree assault, and accessory to first degree murder. As pertinent to the issues before the supreme court, the intermediate appellate court rejected Ray's claim that one of the self-defense-related instructions given by the district court implicitly shifted the burden of proof to him by improperly imposing conditions on the availability of that affirmative defense; and in the absence of any record indication that the jury later watched a recorded witness interview admitted as an exhibit at trial, the appellate court declined to address his claim that the district court abused its discretion in allowing the jury unrestricted access to that recording.

¶2 Because the language of the instruction in question did not permit the jury to reconsider the court's determination, based on the evidence at trial, that the affirmative defense of person was available to Ray, and because the jury was properly instructed concerning the People's burden to disprove that, and any, affirmative defense, the district court did not err in instructing the jury as to his assertion that he acted in defense of himself and a third person. Although error resulted from the district court's reliance on later-overruled case law permitting the jury to have unrestricted access to the exhibit in question, when the content of that exhibit is compared with the other evidence admitted at trial, the error was harmless. The judgment of the court of appeals is therefore affirmed.

I.

¶3 Robert Ray was charged with first degree murder and accessory to murder in connection with the shooting death of Gregory Vann, as well as attempted murder for trying to shoot Jeremy Green, and both first degree attempted murder and first degree assault for each of the separate shootings of Elvin Bell and Javad Marshall-Fields. He was acquitted of the murder of Vann and the attempted murder of Green but was convicted of being an accessory to the murder of Vann and of committing both attempted first degree murder and first degree assault for the shootings of Bell and Marshall-Fields. Ray was sentenced concurrently for his dual convictions of attempted murder and assault with regard to Bell and his dual convictions of attempted murder and assault with regard to Marshall-Fields, but consecutively for the crimes he committed against Bell, the crimes he committed against Marshall-Fields, and the crime he committed relative to the murder of Vann, resulting in a total sentence to the custody of the department of corrections for 108 years.

¶4 The charges all arose from events occurring at a melee at Lowry Park on July 4, 2004, and its aftermath. The evidence at trial included numerous first-hand witness accounts, a home video taken by one of the attendees, a recording of a police interview of Green made shortly after the events in question, and photographic, real, and testimonial evidence concerning the wounds of Bell and Marshall-Fields and the weapons used by Ray and Sir Mario Owens, Ray's very close friend. The defendant also testified on his own behalf.

¶5 Although there was much conflicting testimony, it was undisputed that the Lowry Park event, attended by as many as 200 people, was organized by Vann and Marshall-Fields as a musical event and barbeque, which was free and open to the public. Early in the evening, the defendant was confronted by Marshall-Fields about his behavior at the event, as a result of which interaction the defendant's wife, who was also in attendance with his sister, called Owens to come and support the defendant. Sometime later, about 9:00 p.m., as the wife and sister were attempting to drive away, they became embroiled in a confrontation with a crowd of people, which was joined by the defendant and Owens. A home video showed both men and women involved in the struggle. There was testimony that Vann was attempting to break up the fight, and Green expressly stated in the interview that he confronted the defendant about his aggressive behavior, head-butted him in the face, and heard him, at several points during the confrontation, threaten to kill everybody.

¶6 Shortly thereafter, the defendant admittedly lifted his shirt as he walked forward toward the crowd, revealing a handgun in his waistband, and the defendant's wife identified another man seen in the home video, similarly raising his shirt, as Owens. In the confrontation that ensued, Owens shot Vann in the chest at close range and once more after he fell. As Owens attempted to escape to the car being driven by the defendant, he was pursued by Bell and Marshall-Fields, both of whom were then shot several times. Although both men indicated that they initially thought they had been shot by Owens, being the only person they had seen with a gun, another witness testified that he saw the defendant calmly come around the car, put his gun under his left arm, and shoot both men repeatedly.

¶7 One nine-millimeter and two .380 caliber shell casings were found at the scene, and two .380 caliber bullets were recovered from the body of Vann, who was clearly shot by Owens. One bullet fragment that was later removed from the chest wall of Bell, whom the defendant admitted he shot, was identified as having splintered from a nine-millimeter bullet. Both of Marshall-Fields's wounds had clear entrance and exit wounds, leaving no identifiable bullets or bullet fragments. The defendant's wife testified that the defendant's stepfather disposed of both guns. No witness testified to seeing anyone other than Owens or the defendant with a weapon.

¶8 Although the defendant admitted that in the days following the shooting, he took active steps to help Owens evade capture, he also testified that he did not shoot Marshall-Fields and that although he did shoot Bell, he did so only in defense of himself and Owens. The defendant confirmed that he had a nine-millimeter semiautomatic handgun in his waistband, but he testified that he showed it only in an attempt to force the crowd back so that he could search for a chain he lost during the struggle. He also testified that he never saw Owens with a gun that night, but that he did see blood on Owens's shirt when he was being beaten by Bell and therefore believed Bell had shot Owens, causing the defendant to defensively shoot Bell. Finally, with regard to Green's statement that the defendant repeatedly threatened to kill everybody, the defendant testified simply that he did not recall doing so.

¶9 Following affirmance of his convictions by the court of appeals, the defendant petitioned this court for further review on a host of issues. We issued our writ of certiorari only with regard to the questions whether the district court's instructions erroneously shifted the burden of proof relative to the defendant's assertion of self-defense and whether the jury's having had unfettered access to the Green videotaped interview violated the defendant's federal and state constitutional rights to due process and a fair trial.

II.

¶10 The jury was instructed on the defendant's asserted affirmative defense of acting in defense of himself or a third person in four separate instructions. In addition to an instruction generally notifying the jury of and explaining the prosecution's burden of proof with regard to the elements of each offense, which included committing the other elements without the affirmative defense, the district court instructed the jury, in a separate instruction, that the evidence had raised an affirmative defense; that the prosecution had the burden to prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt as to that affirmative defense as well as the other elements of the crime charged; and that if after considering the evidence of the affirmative defense with the other evidence in the case the jury was not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt as to the defendant's guilt, it would be required to return a not guilty verdict. In a third instruction, the jury was then instructed as to the circumstances under which the defendant's use of physical force and deadly physical force would be justified in defense of himself or another person, including the requirement that the defendant must have had a reasonable belief that he or another person was in imminent danger of being killed or of receiving great bodily injury.

¶11 In the instruction challenged by the defendant here, numbered 25, the jury was further instructed concerning the question whether an actual belief by the defendant, if the jury were to find him to have had one, could be considered to have been supported by reasonable grounds. Specifically, the defendant contends that by instructing the jury in the language, "[i]n deciding whether or not the defendant had reasonable grounds for believing," and further that the jury "should determine whether or not he acted as a reasonable and prudent person," the court implicitly imposed conditions on even the "availability" of the defense, effectively shifting the burden to him to first prove these conditions before being entitled to have the prosecution disprove the defense beyond a reasonable doubt. Unlike our precedent upon which the defendant relies, Instruction No. 25 does not mention anything about the "availability" of the defense, much less suggest that the defendant bore a burden to prove preconditions to its availability; rather, on its face, the instruction purports to further explain the meaning of a statutory concept included in the defense itself.

¶12 It is now well-settled that the issue of justification for intentionally or knowingly killing another person in defense of oneself or a third person is an affirmative defense, as to which the trial court is obliged to instruct the jury whenever the court determines that the defendant has presented some credible evidence on the issue and the defendant requests that the court do so. § 18-1-407(1), C.R.S. (2018); § 18-1-704(1), (2)(a), C.R.S. (2018); § 18-1-710, C.R.S. (2018); Montoya v. People , 2017 CO 40, ¶¶ 26-29, 394 P.3d 676, 686-88 (explaining People v. Pickering , 276 P.3d 553, 555 (Colo. 2011) (stating that self-defense is an affirmative defense with respect to crimes requiring intent, knowledge, or willfulness)); People v. Speer , 255 P.3d 1115, 1119 (Colo. 2011). Once the defense has been adequately raised and presented by the court to the jury, the guilt of the defendant must be established by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt as to that affirmative defense, just as to the other elements of the offense against which the defendant is defending. § 18-1-407(2) ; Pickering , 276 P.3d at 555.

¶13 On several occasions in the past, we have drawn a clear distinction between the prosecution's burden to disprove an affirmative defense to the jury's satisfaction, beyond a reasonable doubt, once it has been placed at issue, and the question whether the defense has been placed at issue in the first place, finding in those cases that an instruction permitting the jury to redetermine the question of a defense's availability or applicability effectively permitted the jury to absolve the prosecution of its burden to disprove the defense and therefore its duty to prove all of the elements of the offense. See People v. Janes , 982 P.2d 300, 303-04 (Colo. 1999) ; Lybarger v. People , 807 P.2d 570, 574, 579, 581-83 (Colo. 1991). In Lybarger , where the jury was instructed both that it should find the defendant guilty if the affirmative defense in question was not "available" to him and that the defense would not be "available" to him if the People proved specified conditions virtually identical with the elements of the crime with which he was charged, we found that taken together these instructions not only erroneously relegated to the jury the function of determining the availability or non-availability of the affirmative defense but also effectively eliminated the prosecution's burden of proof with respect to that defense. 807 P.2d at 574, 581-82. Again, in Janes , which involved the virtually unique situation of the so-called "make-my-day" defense, which can operate as either a pre-trial immunity, which must be proved by the defendant, or an affirmative defense at trial, to be disproved by the prosecution, we held that instructing the jury in the language of the immunity-that the affirmative defense would not be "available" unless the jury first found the victim to have made a knowing unlawful entry-similarly relieved the prosecution of any burden to disprove the defense, until after proof of a precondition only the defendant could have an interest in proving. 982 P.2d at 303-04.

¶14 Unlike the erroneous instructions in Lybarger and Janes , Instruction No. 25 neither stated, nor even implied, anything about the availability or applicability of the defense. Rather, it expressly referenced, and embellished on a concept contained in, the immediately preceding affirmative defense instruction, which itself expressly spelled out the prosecution's burden to disprove the defense beyond a reasonable doubt, by detailing the findings necessarily included in the conditions of the defense. To the extent the defendant suggests that the instruction's use of the phrase "whether or not" relieved the prosecution of its burden by implying an obligation of the jury to determine whether any belief actually held by the defendant was or was not reasonable prior to holding the prosecution to its burden to disprove that the defendant's conduct was justified, there was little chance the jury could have been misled by such a subtle and nuanced interpretation, especially in light of its other express instructions concerning the prosecution's burden. The jury was expressly instructed of the prosecution's burden to disprove the affirmative defense multiple times, in substantially the language of the statutes and pattern instructions, including in the very affirmative defense instruction whose terms were the subject of explanation in Instruction No. 25.

III.

¶15 Despite being refreshed with the transcript of the recording of his interview with the police, Green repeatedly asserted a lack of memory and therefore failed to answer a majority of the prosecutor's questions concerning the Lowry Park shootings. As a result, the videotaped interview was admitted into evidence as a prior inconsistent statement. Over the defendant's objection, the district court ruled that recent changes to the civil procedural rules had eliminated any limitation on exhibits being taken into the jury room during deliberations, and it ordered that the video and equipment to view it be made available to the jury. Although the cases of Frasco v. People , 165 P.3d 701 (Colo. 2007), and DeBella v. People , 233 P.3d 664 (Colo. 2010), had not yet been announced by this court, and the district court could therefore not have been aware of them, our rulings in those cases expressly overruled the precedents relied on by the district court and made clear that its ruling permitting unfettered access to Green's out-of-court interview, without any exercise of discretion on its part, was error.

¶16 However, even a properly objected-to trial error will be disregarded as harmless if that error did not substantially influence the verdict or affect the fairness of the trial proceedings. James v. People , 2018 CO 72, ¶ 19, 426 P.3d 336, 341 ; see also Crim. P. 52(a). While the strength of the evidence supporting a verdict is often an important consideration in assessing harmlessness, so too is the specific nature of the error in question and the nature of the prejudice or risk of prejudice associated with that error. People v. Roman , 2017 CO 70, ¶ 14, 398 P.3d 134, 138 ; Crider v. People , 186 P.3d 39, 43 (Colo. 2008). As we made clear in Frasco , the reason trial courts have an obligation, at least where prompted to do so by a party, to exercise discretion in permitting testimonial exhibits to be viewed by deliberating juries is to guard against their being given undue weight or emphasis, much as they have an obligation with regard to jury requests to review transcripts of specific trial testimony. 165 P.3d at 703-05 (analogizing testimonial exhibits to the trial transcripts at issue in Settle v. People , 180 Colo. 262, 504 P.2d 680 (1972) ); see also Martinez v. People , 2017 CO 36, ¶ 31, 393 P.3d 557, 563 ("[J]urors' unlimited access in the jury room to only one side of the story heightened the risk that they would give that side undue weight ...."). While we have never circumscribed the trial court's discretion in this regard by mandating time limitations on jury access or requiring particular limiting instructions, see Frasco , 165 P.3d at 704, we have consistently emphasized that the trial court must exercise its discretion in allowing such exhibits into the jury room, with the ultimate objective of assessing whether using the exhibit in question will aid the jury in its proper consideration of the case, and even if so, whether a party will nevertheless be unfairly prejudiced by the jury's use of it, id. at 704-05 ; see also DeBella , 233 P.3d at 668.

¶17 Because testimonial exhibits will, by definition, always have been admitted into evidence, unless they were erroneously admitted in the first place, allowing them into the jury room during deliberations will never risk exposure of the jury to evidence not properly before it. Nevertheless, the discretionary decision whether to permit the jury to view testimonial exhibits again, and perhaps repeatedly, is not dissimilar from a trial court's discretionary determination with respect to the admissibility of cumulative testimony in the first instance: whether the incremental probative value of that cumulative testimony is substantially outweighed by the unfairly prejudicial impact of its repetition. See People v. Saiz , 32 P.3d 441, 446, 448 (Colo. 2001) (explaining that CRE 403 requires trial courts to balance the incremental probative value of evidence relative to other evidence in the case against the rule's policy reasons for exclusion of, among other things, cumulative evidence). In each case, the question for the court is whether the added jury exposure, in light of all the other evidence before it, will be more helpful or more harmful to its deliberations, see Frasco , 165 P.3d at 704-05 ; Saiz , 32 P.3d at 446, and because this discretionary choice involves a balance of helpfulness and harmfulness in the first instance, the question whether that balance was made erroneously or amounted to an abuse of discretion will necessarily be closely related to the question whether any error in admission, if it occurred, was harmless. With regard to the question of admissibility in the first instance, we have long recognized that the decision is a highly discretionary one, subject to review on appeal only on the assumption of maximum probative value and minimum unfair prejudice. People v. Gibbens , 905 P.2d 604, 607 (Colo. 1995).

¶18 Accordingly, we have found the failure of trial courts to adequately control jury access to testimonial exhibits to be most problematic where the jury's ultimate determination would necessarily turn on its assessment of the credibility of witnesses, as distinguished from the force of real, or demonstrative, evidence. This has especially been the case where resolution of the issue in question must turn on the assessment of a witness account of the commission of the crime, by the only person other than the defendant to have purportedly witnessed the crime denied by him, which account is both contradictory of the principal defense and the only testimonial account the jury is permitted to repeatedly view. People v. Jefferson , 2017 CO 35, ¶ 59, 393 P.3d 493, 503-04 ; DeBella , 233 P.3d at 668-69. In DeBella , where the credibility of the child sexual-assault victim was severely challenged on cross-examination and the child's lack of credibility was the principal theory of the defense, we therefore found reversible the decision to allow unlimited jury access to his hour-long, out-of-court interview, which-being the only complete recounting of the assaults-we characterized as the "linchpin" of the prosecution's case. 233 P.3d at 668-69. Similarly, in Jefferson , where the principal theory of the defense was that the child sexual assault allegations were not credible, and having introduced no physical evidence of the crime, the prosecution's case once again rested on the alleged victim's often inconsistent allegations, we found reversible the trial court's decision to allow unlimited jury access to a DVD of the child sexual-assault victim's out-of-court interview. ¶¶ 59-60, 393 P.3d at 503-04 ; cf . Martinez , ¶¶ 30-33, 393 P.3d at 562-63 (distinguishing DeBella and Jefferson largely on grounds that DVDs of the victim interviews in Martinez did not similarly serve as linchpin of prosecution's case, where defendant did not base his defense on inconsistencies between victims' in- and out-of-court accounts and where victims' in-court testimony was sufficiently detailed that exhibits were not needed to fill gaps in that testimony).

¶19 Unlike the testimonial exhibits at issue in DeBella and Jefferson , the videotape of Green's interview made shortly after the shootings in this case was not inconsistent with anything to which he testified at trial and did not directly contradict any testimony of the defendant concerning the pertinent events. The exhibit was admitted on the basis of Green's failure to recall, a ruling not before this court, rather than any contradiction of his testimony at trial. And when confronted with Green's statement in the exhibit to the effect that he threatened to kill everyone, the defendant did not dispute making those statements but testified merely that he did not recall doing so.

¶20 Perhaps even more importantly, however, unlike in DeBella and Jefferson , the defendant's guilt in this case did not turn on the credibility of conflicting testimony of the principals, unsupported by corroborating physical evidence or the testimony of other disinterested witnesses. With regard to Bell, there was never any dispute that the defendant intentionally shot him at close range with a nine-millimeter semiautomatic handgun. The defendant merely disputed the number of shots fired and asserted that he shot Bell in defense of himself and Owens, a matter as to which Green's out-of-court statement that the defendant earlier in the evening threatened to kill everyone could have had but peripheral relevance. With regard to that defense, the earlier, universal threat against everyone present at the event could at most suggest that the defendant had already formed an intent to kill Bell, without regard to any imminent threat from him. In stark contrast to this generalized threat, allegedly made in anger and in the midst of a confrontation against a number of people, however, the direct and primary evidence of the defendant's intent to kill came from the shooting itself and its surrounding circumstances, including the defendant's preparatory threatening gesture to the crowd, the fact of his shooting Bell multiple times at close range, the relatively weak evidence that he had reasonable grounds to believe he or Owens was being threatened with deadly force, and, most particularly, eye-witness testimony that he concealed his gun under his arm and calmly shot both Bell and Marshall-Fields during their struggle with Owens. See People v. Dist. Court , 779 P.2d 385, 388 (Colo. 1989) (stating that evidence of intent may include "the use of a deadly weapon, the manner in which it was used, and the existence of hostility ... between the accused and the victim" and noting that "[t]he fact finder may infer an intent to cause the natural and probable consequences of unlawful voluntary acts"); see also People v. Opana , 2017 CO 56, ¶ 17, 395 P.3d 757, 762 (stating that the intended, natural, and probable consequence of the defendant admittedly shooting the victim at close range was death). In consideration of this other and much more direct and powerful evidence that the defendant was not acting in self-defense, there is little likelihood that having the opportunity to see Green's pre-recorded statement more than once had a substantial impact on the jury's verdict as to Bell. See James , ¶ 19, 426 P.3d at 341.

¶21 With respect to the shooting of Marshall-Fields, in the absence of conclusive evidence that his wounds were inflicted with the defendant's gun, the defendant denied any responsibility for that shooting. Nevertheless, the relevance of Green's statements could at most have been equally peripheral. The universal threat to kill everyone at the event offered little motive or support for the shooting of Marshall-Fields, especially in light of the much more direct and powerful evidence that the defendant actually did so. Both Bell and Marshall-Fields were embroiled in a struggle with the defendant's friend Owens, and both were shot virtually simultaneously, with an eye-witness testifying that he personally watched the defendant conceal his gun beneath his arm and calmly shoot both men, one of whom the defendant admitted intentionally shooting in defense of his friend.

¶22 Unlike those instances in which we have found reversible error in allowing unrestricted access to testimonial exhibits, the exhibit in this case was therefore not only not the "linchpin" of the prosecution's case; rather, with regard to the shootings of Bell and Marshall-Fields, the crimes of which the defendant was actually convicted, it was neither substantially helpful nor harmful. While it may arguably have been peripherally meaningful with regard to the charge of being complicit with Owens in the murder of Vann, the charge of which the defendant was acquitted, the district court did not suggest that it considered the exhibit meaningful even for that purpose. Indeed, in closing argument, the prosecution relied on Green's, "I'll kill you all," statements only as evidence of the defendant's complicity in the murder of Vann. The error in this case resulted simply from the district court's reliance on existing precedent to the effect that the exhibit was to go to the jury as a matter of course, regardless of its possible impact on the jury's deliberations.

¶23 Under these circumstances, we can say with confidence that there was not even a reasonable possibility that allowing the jury to view the exhibit during deliberations adversely affected the jury's verdict, much less that it affected a substantial right of the defendant. See Krutsinger v. People , 219 P.3d 1054, 1058 (Colo. 2009) (making clear that the "reasonable possibility" standard for constitutional error is a more onerous harmless-error standard than the "substantially influence" standard for non-constitutional error).

IV.

¶24 Because the language of the instruction in question did not permit the jury to reconsider the court's determination, based on the evidence at trial, that the affirmative defense of person was available to the defendant, and because the jury was properly instructed concerning the People's burden to disprove that, and any, affirmative defense, the district court did not err in instructing the jury as to the defendant's assertion that he acted in defense of himself and a third person. Although error resulted from the district court's reliance on later-overruled case law permitting the jury to have unrestricted access to the exhibit in question, when the content of that exhibit is compared with the other evidence admitted at trial, the error was harmless. The judgment of the court of appeals is therefore affirmed.

JUSTICE GABRIEL concurs in part and dissents in part, and JUSTICE HART joins in the concurrence in part and dissent in part.

JUSTICE GABRIEL, concurring in part and dissenting in part.

¶25 I agree with the majority's conclusion that the jury instructions at issue did not shift the burden of proof to petitioner Robert Ray. I cannot agree, however, with the majority's analysis of the issue relating to the jury's access to the video of the interview of witness Jeremy Green. Unlike the majority, I believe that this court's decisions in DeBella v. People , 233 P.3d 664 (Colo. 2010), and People v. Jefferson , 2017 CO 35, 393 P.3d 493, are dispositive and require reversal on this issue. Accordingly, I respectfully concur in Part II but dissent from Part III of the majority opinion.

I. Factual Background

¶26 After the incident that led to the charges in this case, the police interviewed Green about the events at issue. In this interview, Green repeatedly stated that Ray had shouted to the entire crowd, "I'll kill all you! I'll kill everybody!" Green stated that Ray yelled this at least six times.

¶27 When the prosecution called Green as a witness at Ray's trial, however, he testified that he had little memory of any part of the incident. Indeed, during his testimony, he stated, in words or substance, "I don't remember," well over one hundred times.

¶28 In light of this lack of memory, the prosecution proffered, and the trial court admitted into evidence, the video of Green's interview. This evidence was important because it was the only direct evidence establishing Ray's intent to kill, which was an essential element of numerous of the crimes for which the jury ultimately convicted Ray. Indeed, in its closing argument, the prosecution relied heavily on the video, which the prosecution several times noted the jury would get to see, to establish Ray's intent. By way of example, the prosecution repeatedly reminded the jury of Ray's threat to kill everyone and stated, "It was not an idle threat." The prosecution further observed that sometimes a defendant announces his intention very clearly, and it argued, based on the Green interview, "Mr. Ray intended to kill. His announcement of that fact over and over and over again was not playing around, was not a joke. It was not an idle boast." The prosecution then asked rhetorically, "Is his conscious objective[,] his goal and his desire to kill another person that night? I'll kill all you, I'll kill everybody."

¶29 At the time the court admitted the video of Green's interview, it advised the parties that it would allow further argument as to whether the video should be submitted to the jury during its deliberations. The court subsequently entertained argument, and Ray's counsel contended that if the court was going to provide the video to the jurors, then "there should be some restrictions because ... the case law is pretty clear when the jury wants to see a video ..., that's supposed to be done in the presence of the parties so they cannot keep playing it back and forth, back and forth." Counsel further asserted that the video should only be played if the jurors asked to see it because to allow the jurors to watch the video without restriction would highlight Green's testimony above that of the other witnesses.

¶30 The prosecution responded that defense counsel was incorrect about the law. In the prosecution's view, "any exhibit that was admitted goes back to the jury for their unfettered access, whether it's a statement of the defendant, whether it's a crime scene photograph, whether it's a witness statement."

¶31 The court agreed with the prosecution, citing People v. Pahlavan , 83 P.3d 1138 (Colo. App. 2003), and People v. Isom , 140 P.3d 100 (Colo. App. 2005). The court then ordered that the prosecution make available a DVD of the interview and any associated equipment to allow the jury to watch the video. The court further asked that the prosecution provide "training" to its staff regarding the operation of the equipment and stated that the bailiff would be permitted to go into the jury room to show the jury how to operate the equipment, with the restriction that the jurors not discuss the case while the bailiff was in the room. Finally, the court explained that its procedure was to leave the equipment in a particular hallway until the jurors wanted to watch the video, at which point they would simply need to contact the bailiff. The court provided no limitation on when or how often the jurors could watch the video, nor did it instruct the jury not to afford undue weight or emphasis to the video.

¶32 Notably, no party appears to dispute that a request to the bailiff for the equipment would not have been on the record.

II. Analysis

¶33 I begin by addressing the People's argument that Ray did not preserve the argument that he is now making regarding the video of the Green interview, and I note our standard of review. I then address the applicable law and apply that law to the facts of this case.

A. Preservation and Standard of Review

¶34 The People contend that Ray did not preserve the argument regarding the video of the Green interview that he is now making before us. In the division below, however, the People conceded that Ray preserved this argument, and the division so concluded. I believe that the record fully supports the People's prior concession and the division's conclusion. As noted above, the record shows that Ray made precisely the same argument that he is making here. Accordingly, in my view, he preserved this issue for our review.

¶35 Control over the use of exhibits during jury deliberations rests firmly within the trial court's discretion, and we may not substitute our own judgment for that of the trial court. Jefferson , ¶ 25, 393 P.3d at 498. Accordingly, we will not disturb the court's refusal to limit the use of an exhibit unless the court's decision was manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable, or unfair. Id. at ¶ 25, 393 P.3d at 498-99. In affording discretion to a trial court, however, an appellate court may not abdicate its responsibility to review the trial court's determinations. Id. at ¶ 25, 393 P.3d at 499. A trial court abuses its discretion when it misapplies the law. Id.

¶36 Not every abuse of discretion, however, impairs the reliability of a conviction to a degree that requires reversal. Id. at ¶ 26, 393 P.3d at 499. Pursuant to Crim. P. 52(a), "[a]ny error, defect, irregularity, or variance which does not affect substantial rights" is deemed harmless and "shall be disregarded." Thus, when a defendant objects to and preserves a non-constitutional trial error, the reviewing court will overturn his or her conviction only "if the error 'substantially influenced the verdict or affected the fairness of the trial proceedings.' " Hagos v. People , 2012 CO 63, ¶ 12, 288 P.3d 116, 119 (quoting Tevlin v. People, 715 P.2d 338, 342 (Colo. 1986) ).

B. Applicable Law

¶37 "In this jurisdiction we have long adhered to the rule that absent a specific exclusion of some particular class of exhibits, trial courts exercise discretionary control over jury access to trial exhibits during their deliberations." Frasco v. People , 165 P.3d 701, 704 (Colo. 2007).

¶38 In DeBella , 233 P.3d at 665-69, and Jefferson , ¶¶ 25-62, 393 P.3d at 498-504, we considered trial courts' exercise of such discretionary control in cases involving jury access to videotaped statements of child sexual assault victims. Because I believe that these cases should control our decision here, I discuss them in some detail.

¶39 In DeBella , 233 P.3d at 665, the People charged the defendant with sexual assault on a child and enticement. The evidence at trial included two videotaped interviews in which the victim had described the incidents underlying the charges to a detective and to a counselor. Id. Parts of the first videotape and all of the second were ultimately admitted into evidence and played for the jury in open court. Id. At the close of the evidence, the court announced its intent to provide the jury with a television and the second videotape, thus allowing the jury unconstrained access to the second videotape during deliberations. Id. at 665-66. The court decided not to provide the first videotape because it had not been redacted and thus contained portions of the interview that the court had ruled inadmissible. Id. at 666.

¶40 Defense counsel objected to the court's plan, contending that unless the court imposed restrictions on the jury's access to the second videotape, the jury's ability to review the videotape might result in undue prejudice to the defendant. Id. The court overruled this objection, relying on People v. McKinney , 80 P.3d 823, 829 (Colo. App. 2003), rev'd , 99 P.3d 1038 (Colo. 2004), in which the division had stated that pursuant to the amended C.R.C.P. 47(m), a basis no longer existed for prohibiting juror access during deliberations unless such access would be "infeasible." DeBella , 233 P.3d at 666 (quoting McKinney , 80 P.3d at 829 ).

¶41 The jury eventually found the defendant guilty as charged, and he appealed, arguing, as pertinent here, that the trial court had committed reversible error when it allowed the jury unfettered access to the videotape during deliberations. See People v. DeBella , 219 P.3d 390, 392 (Colo. App. 2009), rev'd , 233 P.3d 664 (Colo. 2010). Before the defendant's conviction was final, however, this court issued its decision in Frasco , 165 P.3d at 704, disapproving of the application of C.R.C.P. 47(m) to exhibits in criminal proceedings and clarifying that "control over the use of exhibits during jury deliberations in criminal proceedings must remain firmly within the discretion of the [trial] court." The DeBella division acknowledged that Frasco controlled but nonetheless affirmed. DeBella , 219 P.3d at 393-97.

¶42 We granted certiorari and reversed. See DeBella , 233 P.3d at 665. We began by noting that Frasco had not announced a new rule of law but rather had reaffirmed this court's decision in Settle v. People , 180 Colo. 262, 504 P.2d 680, 680-81 (1972), in which we had established that trial courts retain discretionary control over jury access to trial exhibits. See DeBella , 233 P.3d at 666. We thus viewed the question before us as whether the trial court had abused its discretion in providing the jury with unfettered access to the videotape during deliberations. See id. at 665.

¶43 In addressing this question, we observed that because the trial court felt bound by McKinney , "it thought its hands [were] tied with regard to the jury's access to the tape." Id. at 668. As a result, we concluded that the trial court had made no determination as to whether unfettered access to the videotape at issue would prejudice the defendant and, thus, the court had abused its discretion. Id. at 667-68.

¶44 Turning to the appropriate remedy, we determined that the trial court's abuse of discretion was not harmless and warranted reversal of the defendant's conviction. See id. at 668. We based this conclusion on the facts that (1) the trial court's failure to exercise control over the jury's access to the videotape or to specify why such control was unnecessary left us with no record as to how-or even if-the jury reviewed the tape during deliberations; (2) the "nearly silent record" prevented us from determining whether the trial court had fulfilled its obligation to "observe caution" that the videotape was not used in such a manner as to create a likelihood of the jury's giving it undue weight or emphasis; (3) "the videotape was the linchpin of the prosecution's case" because it was the only complete recounting of the charged assaults; and (4) because the victim's testimony deviated from his videotaped statement, the inconsistencies "underscore[d] how central the victim's credibility was to the resolution of the trial, thus heightening the danger of providing the jury with unchaperoned access to only one side of the story." Id. at 668-69.

¶45 In reaching this conclusion, we rejected the People's assertion that it was speculative to presume that the jury watched the video at all, much less whether the jury gave it undue weight or emphasis. Id. at 668. We stated, "Where holes in the record are the result of the trial court's error and pertinent inquiries on appeal are reduced to exercises in speculation, the lack of record support should not weigh against the defendant's interests." Id.

¶46 We reached a similar conclusion in Jefferson , ¶¶ 39-62, 393 P.3d at 500-04. There, we acknowledged that the trial court understood its duty to exercise discretion in determining whether to allow the jury unfettered access to a DVD of the child victim's forensic interview. Id. at ¶ 41, 393 P.3d at 501. The factors that the court had considered in making this determination, however, did not support a conclusion that the court had fulfilled its duty to guard against unfair or prejudicial use of the video at issue. Id. This was because all three factors on which the court relied were "virtually ubiquitous" in cases like the one there before us. Id. at ¶ 48, 393 P.3d at 502. We thus concluded that a court that measured the potential for undue emphasis by relying on those factors was likely to find all three factors present, regardless of the risk actually presented by giving the jury unfettered access to the DVD at issue. Id. at ¶ 49, 393 P.3d at 502. Accordingly, we determined that the trial court had abused its discretion in granting the jury unfettered access to the DVD. Id. at ¶ 53, 393 P.3d at 503.

¶47 The question then became whether the error was harmless. For several reasons, we could not say that it was. Id. at ¶ 62, 393 P.3d at 504.

¶48 First, we observed that "[t]he nature of the DVD and the significant role that it played in [the defendant's] trial only exacerbate[d] our concerns regarding the verdict and the fairness of the proceedings." Id. at ¶ 59, 393 P.3d at 503. In support of this conclusion, we noted that (1) the prosecution had presented no physical evidence of the crime; (2) the case thus turned on the victim's allegations, which were at times inconsistent; and (3) because the video contained details that the victim could not remember when she testified at trial, the video likely served as the linchpin of the prosecution's case. Id. at ¶ 59, 393 P.3d at 503-04.

¶49 Second, we stated, "With unfettered access to the DVD during its deliberations, the jury was able to watch and re-watch [the victim] describe the abuse in a manner functionally equivalent to her live testimony, except with more-and more vivid-detail." Id. at ¶ 60, 393 P.3d at 504.

¶50 Finally, we noted that the prosecutor had told the jurors to review the DVD and to decide for themselves. Id. As a result, we believed that the jury was more likely to have placed undue emphasis on the DVD, particularly given the inconsistencies between the victim's recorded statement and her trial testimony and the dearth of physical evidence in the case. Id. We thus concluded that the jury's unfettered access to the DVD substantially influenced the verdict and fairness of the proceedings. See id.

¶51 In reaching this conclusion, we were not persuaded by the People's argument that the brevity of the jury's deliberations rendered any error harmless. Id. at ¶ 61, 393 P.3d at 504. We noted that the length of the jury's deliberations would have allowed the jurors to watch the DVD repeatedly had they wished to do so. Id. Moreover, we reiterated our statement in DeBella that when holes in the record (e.g., the absence of evidence regarding whether the jury actually watched the DVD) resulted from the trial court's error and pertinent inquiries on appeal were reduced to speculation, the lack of a record should not weigh against the defendant. Id.

C. Application

¶52 In my view, DeBella and Jefferson are dispositive in the present case.

¶53 As in DeBella , the trial court relied on now-discredited principles of law in allowing the jury to have unfettered access to the video at issue. In DeBella , 233 P.3d at 666, the trial court had relied on the court of appeals division's opinion in McKinney , which was subsequently disapproved in Frasco , 165 P.3d at 703. In the present case, the trial court similarly relied on Pahlavan , 83 P.3d at 1141, and Isom , 140 P.3d at 104, both of which had followed McKinney . Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in DeBella , 233 P.3d at 667-68, I believe that the trial court abused its discretion in affording the jury unfettered access to the videotape of the Green interview.

¶54 The question thus becomes whether this error was harmless. Unlike the majority, I cannot say that it was.

¶55 As an initial matter, I note that I am unpersuaded by the People's argument that it is unclear whether the jurors even watched the video. In my view, the record reveals that the trial court intended for the jury to have unrestricted access to the video. The prosecution argued for such unfettered access, and the court agreed with the prosecution's argument. Moreover, the court ordered the prosecution to make the video and associated equipment available for the jurors, and the court placed no restrictions on the jurors' viewing of that video. They needed only to contact the bailiff when they wanted to watch it, and the parties appear to agree that such requests would not have been on the record. And given the prosecution's repeated reminders to the jurors that they would have the opportunity to watch the video, I am unwilling to presume that they did not do so.

¶56 Even if there were a question as to whether the jurors had watched the video, however, as we stated in DeBella and reiterated in Jefferson , "[w]here holes in the record [e.g., the absence of evidence regarding whether the jury actually watched a video] are the result of the trial court's error and pertinent inquiries on appeal are reduced to exercises in speculation, the lack of record support should not weigh against the defendant's interests." DeBella , 233 P.3d at 668 ; accord Jefferson , ¶ 61, 393 P.3d at 504.

¶57 In addition to the foregoing, as was the case with the recorded interviews in DeBella and Jefferson , the video of Green's interview was important to the prosecution's case. As noted above, it appears to have been the principal evidence of Ray's intent to kill, which was an element of many of the offenses with which he was charged and of which he was convicted. Indeed, apparently acknowledging this fact, the prosecution relied heavily (and repeatedly) in closing arguments on the Green video to argue that Ray had the requisite intent.

¶58 Finally, at trial, Green had virtually no memory of the facts that he recounted in the interview, which was close in time to the incident at issue. As a result, the jury would have had to rely substantially on the Green interview to decide whether Ray had formed the requisite intent, and they were able to watch and re-watch Green describe the events at issue as if he were a witness inside the jury room, but without that testimony's being subject to cross-examination and without affording equal access to Ray's side of the story. See DeBella , 233 P.3d at 669 (noting that the inconsistencies between the victim's recorded statement and her trial testimony underscored how central the victim's credibility was in the case, "thus heightening the danger of providing the jury with unchaperoned access to only one side of the story").

¶59 For the reasons set forth in Jefferson , ¶ 60, 393 P.3d at 504, the jury's ability to review the video in this way presented a substantial risk that the jury would give the video undue weight, and this risk was exacerbated by the lack of any cautionary instruction from the court and by the prosecution's reminders in closing arguments that the jury would have the opportunity to watch the video in the jury room. See also id. (noting that the prosecutor's request in rebuttal closing argument that the jurors watch the DVD there at issue likely resulted in the jury's placing undue emphasis on the DVD and that, given the inconsistencies between the witness's recorded statement and her trial testimony, the likelihood of such undue emphasis substantially influenced the verdict and the fairness of the proceedings).

¶60 For these reasons, I believe that the trial court's error in allowing the jurors unfettered access to the video of the Green interview was not harmless.

III. Conclusion

¶61 In light of the foregoing, I would conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in affording the jury unfettered access to the videotape of the Green interview. Moreover, unlike the majority, I cannot say that this error was harmless. Accordingly, I would reverse the division's judgment on this point.

¶62 For these reasons, I respectfully concur in part and dissent in part from the majority opinion in this case.

I am authorized to state that JUSTICE HART joins in this concurrence in part and dissent in part.

      In a later trial not at issue here, the defendant was convicted as a complicitor for, among other crimes, the subsequent murders of Marshall-Fields and his fiancée. The attempted first degree murder convictions in the present case were used as sentence aggravators in the defendant's death sentence that resulted from the later trial. Evidence relating to these murders was not introduced at trial in the present case.

      In deciding whether or not the defendant had reasonable grounds for believing that he or another was in imminent danger of being killed or of receiving serious bodily injury, or that he or another was in imminent danger from the use of unlawful physical force, you should determine whether or not he acted as a reasonable and prudent person would have acted under like circumstances. In determining this, you should consider the totality of the circumstances, including the number of people reasonably appearing to be a threat.
      It is not enough that the defendant believed himself or another to be in danger, unless the facts and circumstances shown by the evidence and known by him at the time, or by him then believed to be true, are such that you can say that as a reasonable person he had grounds for that belief.

      To be clear, the error occurred when the court ruled, without considering the risk of undue prejudice, and consequently without exercising any discretion, that the jury must be allowed unfettered access to the exhibit. See DeBella v. People , 233 P.3d 664, 668 (Colo. 2010). Therefore, the question whether, or how many times, the jury watched the recorded interview could at most be relevant to the harmfulness of that erroneous ruling.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: JUSTICE BOATRIGHT delivered the Opinion of the Court. CHIEF JUSTICE COATS, dissenting.

license: Public Domain

text:
    David R. CALVERT, Petitioner, v. Diane L. MAYBERRY a/k/a Diane Marie Laba-Mayberry and Desiree L. Mayberry, Respondents.
    Supreme Court Case No. 16SC413
    Supreme Court of Colorado.
    April 8, 2019 Rehearing Denied May 20, 2019
    Attorneys for Petitioner: Gill & Ledbetter, LLP, Anne Whalen Gill, Castle Rock, Colorado
    Attorney for Respondent Diane L. Mayberry: Eric M. James, Fort Collins, Colorado
    Attorneys for Respondent Desiree L. Mayberry: Miller & Steiert, P.C., Christopher J. Forrest, Gary M. Clexton, Stephen J. Woolsey, Littleton, Colorado
    En Banc
   JUSTICE BOATRIGHT delivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶1 David Calvert was disbarred for various ethical violations, including entering into an oral agreement with a client without complying with the requisite safeguards of Colorado Rule of Professional Conduct 1.8(a). After being disbarred, Calvert sued his former client, Diane Mayberry, for breach of that same oral agreement, claiming that there was a contract between them. The trial court granted Mayberry's motion for summary judgment, and the court of appeals affirmed. Calvert now asks us to consider three questions related to this dispute: (1) whether an attorney who was found to have violated Rule 1.8(a) in a disciplinary proceeding is estopped from relitigating the same factual issues in a civil proceeding; (2) whether a contract between an attorney and a client entered into in violation of Rule 1.8(a) is enforceable; and (3) whether the trial court abused its discretion in awarding attorney's fees against Calvert after finding his lawsuit groundless and frivolous.

¶2 First, because Calvert conceded that he could not relitigate whether he entered into an agreement with a client without meeting Rule 1.8(a)'s requirements, we decline to answer whether issue preclusion applies to those factual findings. Second, we hold that when an attorney enters into a contract without complying with Rule 1.8(a), the contract is presumptively void as against public policy; however, a lawyer may rebut that presumption by showing that, under the circumstances, the contract does not contravene the public policy underlying Rule 1.8(a). Finally, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney's fees at the trial level because the record supports the court's finding that the case was groundless, frivolous, and brought in bad faith. But as to attorney's fees at the appellate level, because the questions of whether issue preclusion applied in this proceeding and whether a contract made in violation of Rule 1.8(a) is void as against public policy are legitimately appealable issues, we hold that appellate attorney's fees are not appropriate.

¶3 Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals as to the merits on other grounds, affirm the award of attorney's fees at the trial level, and reverse the court of appeals' order remanding for a determination of appellate attorney's fees.

I. Facts and Procedural History

¶4 When Mayberry's husband died, she retained Calvert to help her secure title in her name to the house that she and her husband jointly owned. After Calvert successfully secured title, Mayberry informed Calvert that she was planning to move out of the state and wished to sell her house. Purportedly to aid Mayberry, Calvert alleges in his complaint that he gave her approximately $193,000 in various increments to renovate the house. Despite testifying at the disciplinary hearing that he had no agreement with Mayberry, Calvert alleged in this subsequent lawsuit that the parties agreed that Mayberry would repay Calvert the money from the proceeds of the house after she sold it. Calvert did not counsel Mayberry to seek independent legal advice before entering into this agreement, nor did he memorialize the agreement in writing.

¶5 After Calvert gave the money to Mayberry, he approached the Weinhauers, another set of his clients, and suggested that they loan additional funds to Mayberry and then secure their loan with a deed of trust on Mayberry's house. The Weinhauers declined. Nevertheless, Calvert presented a promissory note and a deed of trust in favor of the Weinhauers to Mayberry for her signature; she signed both documents. After Mayberry signed the deed, Calvert recorded it without the Weinhauers' signatures or knowledge.

¶6 After recording the deed, Calvert once again approached the Weinhauers. This time, Calvert attempted to persuade them to assign the deed to him or his company, Calvert & Co., presumably to secure an interest in Mayberry's house. The Weinhauers once again declined. Unbeknownst to Calvert, after the deed of trust was recorded, Mayberry transferred title to the house to her daughter, who continues to own the house.

¶7 Calvert's actions, combined with other ethical violations, ultimately led to disciplinary proceedings and his eventual disbarment. Following his disbarment, Calvert filed a civil suit against Mayberry and her daughter (collectively, "Defendants"), seeking either repayment of the money he gave to Mayberry as damages on his breach-of-contract claim or an equitable lien on Mayberry's house. He also alleged that the daughter had intentionally interfered with his agreement with Mayberry, asserting that she had convinced Mayberry to transfer title to the house to her in order to deprive Calvert of his interest.

¶8 Defendants moved for summary judgment. Noting that the attorney discipline hearing board found that Calvert had violated Rule 1.8(a), Defendants argued that the doctrine of issue preclusion prevented Calvert from relitigating this finding. Defendants then argued that the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct are an expression of public policy and that, because Calvert had violated Rule 1.8(a), the contract was void as against public policy. Finally, Defendants sought attorney's fees, arguing that Calvert's claims were groundless and frivolous.

¶9 The trial court granted Defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding that issue preclusion applied and that the alleged contract was void as against public policy. It also issued sanctions of attorney's fees and costs against Calvert, finding it "disturbing" that when Calvert's original scheme to deprive Mayberry of her home led to his disbarment, he then turned to the court system, still hoping to benefit from his unethical conduct.

¶10 Calvert appealed. As relevant here, he argued that (1) issue preclusion did not apply; (2) the contract was not void because the Rules of Professional Conduct have never been deemed an expression of public policy, and the Preamble to the Rules states that they do not give rise to a civil cause of action; and (3) sanctions were inappropriate because his lawsuit raised novel legal issues. Defendants opposed Calvert's appeal and moved for appellate attorney's fees, arguing that Calvert pursued the appeal for the sole purpose of harassment or delay.

¶11 The court of appeals agreed with the trial court, holding that issue preclusion barred Calvert from relitigating his Rule 1.8(a) violation and that, because the underlying contract was made in violation of Rule 1.8(a), the contract was void as against public policy. Calvert v. Mayberry , 2016 COA 60, ¶¶ 23, 33, 442 P.3d 905. The court of appeals also affirmed the trial court's award of attorney's fees, concluding that the evidence "support[ed] the trial court's determination that this case lacked substantial justification and that [Calvert] brought it in bad faith." Id. at ¶ 44. Regarding appellate attorney's fees, however, the court of appeals could not determine from the existing record whether Calvert filed his appeal for the sole purpose of harassment or delay. Id. at ¶ 51. It thus remanded the case to the trial court to make this determination and award fees consistent with its conclusion. Id.

¶12 We granted certiorari.

II. Standard of Review

¶13 We review de novo whether a contract violates public policy. See Bailey v. Lincoln Gen. Ins. , 255 P.3d 1039, 1045 (Colo. 2011). We review a court's award of attorney's fees for an abuse of discretion and will reverse an award only if it is not supported by the evidence. Spring Creek Ranchers Ass'n v. McNichols , 165 P.3d 244, 246 (Colo. 2007).

III. Law and Analysis

¶14 At the heart of this dispute is whether the alleged contract between Calvert and Mayberry is enforceable. Because Calvert conceded at oral argument that he could not relitigate whether he complied with Rule 1.8(a) and further admitted in his opening brief that he entered into an oral agreement with his client without advising her or memorializing the agreement, we decline to address the question of issue preclusion. Those facts are no longer in dispute. Hence, we begin our analysis by accepting Calvert's admission that he did not comply with Rule 1.8(a).

¶15 Next, we consider the enforceability of a contract entered into without complying with Rule 1.8(a). We hold that when an attorney enters into a contract without complying with Rule 1.8(a), the contract is presumptively void as against the public policy underlying the Rule. We further hold that an attorney may rebut this presumption by showing that, under the circumstances, the contract does not contravene the public policy underlying Rule 1.8(a).

¶16 Finally, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney's fees. However, appellate attorney's fees, for appeals pursued at both the court of appeals and this court, are inappropriate, as the appeals raised legitimate legal questions.

A. Calvert's Admission That He Failed to Comply with Rule 1.8(a)'s Requirements

¶17 In determining that the oral agreement violated public policy, both courts below gave preclusive effect to the hearing board's finding that Calvert violated Rule 1.8(a). But we decline to determine whether issue preclusion applies to the board's findings, because Calvert admitted in his briefing before this court that he did not fulfill two of Rule 1.8(a)'s requirements and conceded during oral arguments that he could not relitigate whether he complied with Rule 1.8(a)'s requirements. This constitutes a judicial admission.

¶18 "A judicial admission is a formal, deliberate declaration which a party or his attorney makes in a judicial proceeding for the purpose of dispensing with proof of formal matters or of facts about which there is no real dispute." Kempter v. Hurd , 713 P.2d 1274, 1279 (Colo. 1986). In Calvert's opening brief to this court, he stated that "[h]e did not advise [Mayberry] to seek independent legal advice about the loans and did not reduce any of their discussions to writing." Because Rule 1.8(a) requires lawyers to both advise their clients of the desirability of seeking independent legal advice and reduce their agreements to writing, Calvert's statement that he did neither of these is an admission that he did not comply with Rule 1.8(a). When asked at oral argument if Calvert could relitigate whether he complied with the requirements of Rule 1.8, Calvert's counsel replied that he could not. Because Calvert admitted that he failed to comply with Rule 1.8(a)'s requirements, we need not reach the question of issue preclusion.

¶19 Now we turn to the question of whether the loan contract Calvert claims he entered into with Mayberry is enforceable.

B. Enforceability of the Contract

¶20 To make that determination, we first consider whether Rule 1.8(a) is an expression of public policy. After concluding that it is, we hold that when an attorney enters into a contract without complying with Rule 1.8(a), the contract is presumptively void as against the public policy underlying the Rule. We further hold that an attorney may rebut this presumption by showing that, under the circumstances, the contract does not contravene the public policy underlying Rule 1.8(a). Finally, we apply this holding to the case at bar and conclude that the oral agreement Calvert entered into with Mayberry in violation of Rule 1.8(a) is presumptively void and, because the record shows that Calvert cannot rebut this presumption, the agreement is unenforceable.

1. Rule 1.8(a) Is an Expression of Public Policy

¶21 Colorado courts recognize a strong policy of freedom of contract. "Contracts between competent parties, voluntarily and fairly made, should be enforceable according to the terms to which they freely commit themselves." Ravenstar, LLC v. One Ski Hill Place, LLC , 2017 CO 83, ¶ 12, 401 P.3d 552, 555 (quoting Keller v. A.O. Smith Harvestore Prods., Inc. , 819 P.2d 69, 75 (Colo. 1991) (Rovira, C.J., dissenting)). Even so, a contract is unenforceable by either party if it is against public policy. See Russell v. Courier Printing & Pub. Co. , 43 Colo. 321, 95 P. 936, 938 (1908) ; see also Martin Marietta Corp. v. Lorenz , 823 P.2d 100, 109 (Colo. 1992) ("[It is] Colorado's long-standing rule that a contract violative of public policy is unenforceable....").

¶22 Public policy "is that rule of law which declares that no one can lawfully do that which tends to injure the public, or is detrimental to the public good." Russell , 95 P. at 938. Although "[s]tatutes by their nature are the most reasonable and common sources for defining public policy," professional ethical codes may also be expressions of public policy. Rocky Mountain Hosp. & Med. Serv. v. Mariani , 916 P.2d 519, 525 (Colo. 1996). To qualify as an expression of public policy under Mariani , an ethical rule must (1) "be designed to serve the interests of the public rather than the interests of the profession," (2) "not concern merely technical matters or administrative regulations," and (3) "provide a clear mandate to act or not to act in a particular way." Id. We now consider whether Rule 1.8(a) satisfies these three factors.

¶23 First, we must determine if Rule 1.8(a) is designed to serve the public or the profession. Rule 1.8(a) lays out the safeguards that an attorney must put in place before entering into a business transaction with a client:

A lawyer shall not enter into a business transaction with a client or knowingly acquire an ownership, possessory, security or other pecuniary interest adverse to a client unless:
(1) the transaction and terms on which the lawyer acquires the interest are fair and reasonable to the client and are fully disclosed and transmitted in writing in a manner that can be reasonably understood by the client;
(2) the client is advised in writing of the desirability of seeking and is given a reasonable opportunity to seek the advice of independent legal counsel on the transaction; and
(3) the client gives informed consent, in a writing signed by the client, to the essential terms of the transaction and the lawyer's role in the transaction, including whether the lawyer is representing the client in the transaction.

Because of the unbalanced nature of the attorney-client relationship, these safeguards are necessary to protect the client , as the "lawyer's legal skill and training, together with the relationship of trust and confidence between lawyer and client, create the possibility of overreaching" on the part of the attorney. Colo. RPC 1.8, cmt. 1. Moreover, Rule 1.8(a) applies to all personal transactions between the lawyer and client, but does not apply to "standard commercial transactions between the lawyer and the client for products or services that the client generally markets to others," because "[i]n such transactions, the lawyer has no advantage in dealing with the client." Id.

¶24 Thus, Rule 1.8(a) is a prophylactic rule whose purpose is to protect clients-i.e., the public-from lawyers potentially wielding their inherent advantage and influence. While there may be an incidental benefit to the legal profession by ensuring public confidence in attorneys, Rule 1.8(a)'s primary purpose is to serve the interests of the public. Therefore, the Rule satisfies the first element of the Mariani test.

¶25 Second, we must ensure that Rule 1.8(a) does not concern merely technical or administrative matters. Rule 1.8(a) deals with the safeguards that must be put in place to protect the public as well as the integrity of the attorney-client relationship. This Rule is designed to protect clients from being taken advantage of in a financial transaction by someone with whom they share confidential information and on whom they rely for advice. Such substantive protection clearly is not technical or administrative. It instead ensures that lawyers do not exert undue influence over their clients. Indeed, compliance with this Rule is so important that violations can result in disbarment. See ABA Standard 4.31(b). Thus, Rule 1.8(a) satisfies the second element of the Mariani test.

¶26 Third, we must determine if Rule 1.8(a) provides a clear mandate to act (or not act) in a certain way. The rules within the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct take one of three forms: (1) imperative rules, "cast in terms of 'shall' or 'shall not' "; (2) permissive rules, "generally cast in the term 'may' "; and (3) "[r]ules defin[ing] the nature of relationships between the lawyer and others." Colo. RPC, Preamble & Scope, [14]. Rule 1.8(a) is an imperative rule, stating that lawyers "shall not enter into a business transaction with a client" without complying with the Rule's requirements. (Emphasis added). As previously detailed, subsection (1) requires that terms be fair and reasonable to the client, and fully disclosed in writing and in a manner the client can understand; subsection (2) requires that the lawyer advise the client, in writing, of the desirability of seeking independent counsel, and that the lawyer provide a reasonable time for the client to seek such counsel; and subsection (3) requires that the client give informed consent, in a signed writing, to both the essential terms of the transaction and the lawyer's role in the transaction. These requirements are set forth in clear and specific terms. Because Rule 1.8(a) clearly sets forth the requirements that an attorney must follow prior to entering into a business transaction with a client, Rule 1.8(a) contains a clear mandate to act in a certain way and thus satisfies the last element of the Mariani test.

¶27 Therefore, because Rule 1.8(a) is an ethical rule whose purpose is to protect the public, which does not pertain to technical or administrative matters, and whose mandate is clearly laid out, Rule 1.8(a) qualifies as an expression of public policy. See Mariani , 916 P.2d at 525. We now consider the legal consequences when a contract is entered into in violation of Rule 1.8(a).

2. Effect of a Rule 1.8(a) Violation

¶28 While this is an issue of first impression for this court, other states have addressed the public-policy implications of rules similar to Rule 1.8(a). Some states have held that contracts entered into in violation of such a rule are void. See, e.g. , Succession of Cloud , 530 So.2d 1146, 1150 (La. 1988) ; Evans v. Luptak, PLC v. Lizza , 251 Mich.App. 187, 650 N.W.2d 364, 370 (2002) ; Law Offices of Peter H. Priest, PLLC v. Coch , 244 N.C.App. 53, 780 S.E.2d 163, 174 (2015). These states focus on the violations of the ethical rule itself, rather than on the public policy expressed by the rule. But, as the supreme court of Washington recognized, although "all [ethical rule] violations are in some way injurious to the public, not all [ethical rule] violations will render any related contract injurious to the public." LK Operating, LLC v. Collection Grp., LLC , 181 Wash.2d 48, 331 P.3d 1147, 1164 (2014). As such, the court held "that a contract entered [into] in violation of [ Rule] 1.8(a) may not be enforced unless it can be shown that notwithstanding the violation, the resulting contract does not violate the underlying public policy of the rule." Id. at 1165.

¶29 We find Washington's approach persuasive. Our Rule 1.8(a), like other prophylactic rules, was adopted to minimize the likelihood that a lawyer will take advantage of a client, whether purposefully or accidentally. But a lawyer may conceivably enter into a business transaction with a client that fails to comply with Rule 1.8(a)'s safeguards yet remains fair to the client. Hence, a holding that absolutely voids a contract for violating the Rule may actually harm the person it is designed to protect.

¶30 Accordingly, we hold that a contract entered into in violation of Rule 1.8(a) is presumptively void. However, because it is possible for a lawyer to enter into a contract in violation of Rule 1.8(a) without that contract offending public policy, this presumption is rebuttable. To rebut this presumption, a lawyer seeking to enforce the contract must show that the contract does not offend the public policy considerations underlying Rule 1.8(a).

¶31 As discussed, Rule 1.8(a) expresses three main public policy considerations, espoused in its three subsections: (1) a fair, fully-disclosed transaction; (2) a properly-counseled client; and (3) no improper influence by the attorney. Hence, to enforce a contract entered into without complying with Rule 1.8(a), the attorney must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) the contract's terms are fair and reasonable, (2) the terms of the agreement are unambiguous, and (3) there was no undue influence or overreaching. The requirement that the terms be fair and reasonable ensures that the transaction is the equivalent of an arms-length transaction with a disinterested third party. The requirement that the terms be unambiguous serves the policy that the transaction is fully disclosed. Finally, the requirement that there be no undue influence or overreaching serves the dual purpose of ensuring that the attorney's inherent advantage over the client is not abused and that the policy of a properly counseled client is satisfied. If the lawyer can make these showings, then the contract does not violate the public policy considerations expressed by Rule 1.8(a) and is enforceable. To be sure, these requirements closely track the actual requirements of Rule 1.8(a). However, the protective concerns of Rule 1.8(a) are weighty and should not be easily overcome. Instead, our framework allows technical infirmities to be overcome when an attorney has followed the spirit of the Rule.

¶32 Calvert argues that the Preamble & Scope section of the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct requires a different result because it states that the "[v]iolation of a Rule should not itself give rise to a cause of action against a lawyer nor should it create any presumption in such a case that a legal duty has been breached." Colo. RPC, Preamble & Scope, [20]; see also Olsen & Brown v. City of Englewood , 889 P.2d 673, 676 (Colo. 1995) (recognizing that the "rules are in place to provide guidance in the attorney-client relationship and to serve as a mechanism of internal professional discipline"). But our holding today does neither of these things. We are not concluding that a client may sue a lawyer for violating Rule 1.8(a) ; nor are we concluding that violating the Rule creates a presumption in a separate civil action that a lawyer breached his or her duty. Instead, we are merely recognizing that Rule 1.8(a) is an expression of public policy, meaning that a contract entered into in violation of the Rule is presumptively void.

¶33 Accordingly, the contract is unenforceable unless the lawyer can demonstrate that it did not offend the policy goals underlying the Rule. We now apply our framework to the facts of this case.

3. Application

¶34 It is undisputed that Calvert gave money to Mayberry. What is not clear, however, is why he gave her the money. Was it a gift or a loan? At different times, Calvert has said yes to both. In his sworn testimony at the disciplinary hearing, Calvert stated that there was no agreement and that he "never asked [Mayberry] for a nickel back." In contrast, Calvert's complaint alleged that the money was given as part of an oral agreement that was "essentially a joint venture," and he brought a claim for breach of contract. Both cannot be true. However, under these circumstances, the answer is irrelevant. The result is the same in either event.

¶35 To begin, if we were to accept Calvert's prior position that the money was given as a gift, then Calvert has no legally enforceable claim to the money. On the other hand, if (as Calvert currently claims) the money was a loan per an oral agreement, then his conduct was governed by Rule 1.8(a). And-recognizing Calvert's admission that he neither advised Mayberry to seek independent counsel nor memorialized the agreement in writing-the oral agreement violated Rule 1.8(a) and was thus presumptively void as against public policy.

¶36 Because we are creating a rebuttable presumption for the first time, we would normally remand the case for Calvert to present evidence rebutting the presumption. But the record makes plain that this would be impossible.

¶37 To rebut this presumption, Calvert would have to show that (1) the terms of the agreement were fair and reasonable, (2) the terms of the agreement were unambiguous, and (3) he did not overreach or unduly influence Mayberry into entering into the agreement.

¶38 In his complaint, Calvert alleges that the money was given to Mayberry "in contemplation of the equity of [Mayberry's] house," but there is no indication as to what, if any, interest rate Mayberry would be paying or what the repayment schedule would look like. Calvert gave the money to Mayberry in small increments, and there is no indication as to the maximum amount Calvert was willing to give her. Nor is there any alternate method of repayment should Mayberry decide not to sell the home, as actually occurred here. Calvert himself states that he loaned Mayberry approximately $193,000 without ensuring that even the most basic terms of the agreement were agreed upon. Most importantly, the alleged agreement was never memorialized and without knowing what the terms of the agreement were, there is no way to determine if they were fair and reasonable; they certainly were not unambiguous.

Because Calvert cannot show that the terms of the transaction are fair and reasonable, or that they are unambiguous, the presumption cannot be rebutted and the agreement is unenforceable. As a result, we need not reach the third part of the test and determine if there was undue influence exerted by Calvert.

¶39 Having determined that the oral loan agreement is void as against public policy, we now turn to the propriety of awarding attorney's fees.

C. Attorney's Fees

¶40 Calvert's original complaint brought claims against Defendants for breach of contract, foreclosure of an equitable lien, civil conspiracy for fraudulent transfer, false representation, and intentional interference with contractual obligations. After granting Defendants' motion for summary judgment, the trial court awarded attorney's fees, finding that Calvert's claims lacked substantial justification and were brought in bad faith. On appeal, the court of appeals affirmed the fee award, and it remanded the case to the trial court to determine whether awarding fees at the appellate level was appropriate. We now review the propriety of those decisions.

¶41 First, we hold that the record supports the trial court's award of attorney's fees. We further hold that, while the initial action lacked substantial justification, neither of Calvert's appeals was frivolous, meaning that awarding fees at the appellate level is inappropriate.

1. Attorney's Fees at the Trial Level

¶42 Colorado law provides that a court shall assess attorney's fees against a party if the party brought an action that lacked substantial justification or was for the purpose of delay or harassment. § 13-17-102(4), C.R.S. (2018). An action lacks substantial justification when it is "substantially frivolous, substantially groundless, or substantially vexatious." Id.

¶43 Here, Calvert sued to enforce an agreement that, by his own admission, has no definite terms and was not reduced to writing. Moreover, Calvert supplied no affidavits saying that there was an agreement, while Mayberry provided several affidavits saying that there was not an agreement. In fact, Calvert testified at the disciplinary hearing that he "had no agreement with [Mayberry] at all." This suggests that his claims were groundless and frivolous. And the decision to switch gears-first claiming that no agreement existed and then suing for breach of contract-is highly suggestive of bad faith. Thus, the record supports the trial court's award of attorney's fees, and we will not disturb the award on appeal.

2. Attorney's Fees at the Appellate Level

¶44 Defendants requested further sanctions on appeal, arguing that Calvert's appeals were frivolous and brought for the sole purpose of delay or harassment. They argue that Calvert has continuously filed appeals to delay removing the Weinhauer deed of trust from Mayberry's home, as ordered by the trial court.

¶45 An appeal may be either frivolous as filed or frivolous as argued. Castillo v. Koppes-Conway , 148 P.3d 289, 292 (Colo. App. 2006). It is frivolous as filed when there are no legitimately appealable issues because the judgment below "was so plainly correct and the legal authority contrary to the appellant's position so clear." Id. (citing Dungaree Realty, Inc. v. United States , 30 F.3d 122, 124 (Fed. Cir. 1994) ). Even if there are legitimately appealable issues, an appeal may still be frivolous as argued if the appellant "fail[s] to set forth ... a coherent assertion of error, supported by legal authority." Id.

¶46 Both courts below held that issue preclusion barred Calvert from relitigating whether he violated Rule 1.8(a) and that Rule 1.8(a) was an expression of public policy that voided the contract. Because these are both issues of first impression, we cannot say that the trial court was "plainly correct" or that the legal authority contrary to Calvert's position was "clear." Thus, even though Calvert's underlying claims were groundless, his appeal was not frivolous as filed.

¶47 As to the frivolousness of his arguments, Calvert presented coherent legal arguments to both appellate courts and effectively addressed Defendants' counterarguments. Calvert's briefs properly addressed the standard of review and cited relevant case law, and Calvert's attorney presented the arguments in a reasonable manner at oral argument. While Defendants note that Calvert made some unsupported factual assertions and violated some rules of procedure during the appeal, this behavior does not rise to the level of frivolous as argued. See id. at 291-93 (holding that an appeal is frivolous as argued when the appellant cites minimal and irrelevant authority, violates multiple rules of procedure, and "presents tortured rhetoric" rather than "setting forth a cogent argument").

¶48 We therefore decline to award attorney's fees on appeal.

IV. Conclusion

¶49 First, because Calvert's counsel conceded at oral argument that he could not relitigate whether he complied with Rule 1.8(a)'s requirements, we decline to answer whether issue preclusion applies. Second, we hold that when an attorney enters in a contract without complying with Rule 1.8(a), the contract is presumptively void as against public policy; however, the attorney may rebut that presumption by showing that, under the circumstances, the contract does not contravene the public policy underlying Rule 1.8(a). We also affirm the trial court's award of attorney's fees at the trial level. However, we decline to award such fees on appeal.

¶50 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals as to the merits on other grounds, affirm the award of attorney's fees at the trial level, and reverse the court of appeals' order remanding for a determination of appellate attorney's fees.

CHIEF JUSTICE COATS dissents, and JUSTICE SAMOUR joins in the dissent.

CHIEF JUSTICE COATS, dissenting.

¶51 I do not agree with the majority that the ethical rules promulgated by this court for the supervision of the practice of law are in any way capable of expressing the public policy of the jurisdiction. Nor do I agree that a violation of those rules, even if they could be a source of public policy, could have the effect on contract formation envisioned by the majority. And finally, although I applaud its decision to vacate the intermediate appellate court's extension of the doctrine of collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, to bar the litigation of facts previously determined by a lawyer disciplinary panel, I am not as sanguine as the majority about its own ability to dodge the question and still reach the conclusion it does in this case. Because I not only disagree with the majority's reasoning and understanding of our prior decisions, but also fear we will come to regret injecting our own rules governing the practice of law into questions of civil liability, I respectfully dissent and outline my concerns.

¶52 To begin, I do not agree that our Rules of Professional Conduct can be viewed as a source of public policy for purposes of contract liability, nor do I believe we have ever suggested anything of the kind. In Rocky Mountain Hospital & Medical Service v. Mariani , heavily relied on by the majority, we narrowly held that under limited circumstances, professional ethical codes, just as constitutional or statutory provisions themselves, may be looked upon as a source of public policy for purposes of the public policy exception to what would otherwise be an employment at-will. 916 P.2d 519, 525-26 (Colo. 1996). In that case, we specifically found that "[t]he essence of the public policy exception is that an employee will have a cognizable claim for wrongful discharge 'if the discharge of the employee contravenes a clear mandate of public policy,' " id. at 523-24 (quoting Martin Marietta Corp. v. Lorenz , 823 P.2d 100, 107 (Colo. 1992), and that Rule 7.3 of the Colorado State Board of Accountancy Rules of Professional Conduct, entitled "Integrity and Objectivity,"

3 Colo. Code Regs. 705-1 (1991) ), "represents a clear mandate of public policy for purposes of establishing a claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy ," Mariani , 916 P.2d at 526 (emphasis added). In that case, we therefore held, at most, that proof of an employee's discharge for complying with professional ethical rules may sometimes be sufficient to make out a claim for wrongful discharge-not that failing to comply with professional ethical obligations constitutes a violation of public policy capable of invalidating an otherwise valid contract.

¶53 Furthermore, to the extent considerations of public policy have been recognized to render a contractual agreement unenforceable, their effect has been limited to nullifying particular terms that are offensive to public policy. See Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 178 (Am. Law Inst. 1981) ("A promise or other term of an agreement is unenforceable on grounds of public policy if legislation provides that it is unenforceable or the interest in its enforcement is clearly outweighed in the circumstances by a public policy against the enforcement of such terms ."(emphasis added)); see also, e.g. , Boles v. Sun Ergoline, Inc. , 223 P.3d 724, 727-28 (Colo. 2010) (exculpatory agreement releasing manufacturer from strict products liability held to violate public policy); Peterman v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. , 961 P.2d 487, 493 (Colo. 1998) (consent to sue clause in auto insurance policy violated public policy); Martinez v. Cont'l Enters. , 730 P.2d 308, 316 (Colo. 1986) (public policy favoring possession by mortgagor prior to foreclosure prevailed over contrary contractual provision in deed of trust). I am unaware (and the majority does not suggest) that either this court or the court of appeals has ever approved a public policy defense to contract formation until now, perhaps because traditionally accepted defenses to contract formation already incorporate such policy-related concerns as incapacity, duress, and undue influence, as well as mistake, misrepresentation, and fraud. It is far from clear to me why the majority considers these long-established defenses inadequate to protect law clients, regardless of their sophistication and capability, from forging agreements with their attorneys, and instead feels it necessary to effectively extend a presumption of undue influence whenever the attorney fails to fully comply with the Rules of Professional Conduct, notwithstanding the Rules' own express admonition that a violation shall not create any presumption that a legal duty has been breached. See Colo. RPC, Preamble & Scope, [20].

¶54 Although I therefore find problematic enough the creation of a new defense to contract formation based on the failure of a contracting party to comply with professional ethical codes, I am particularly concerned about creating a new contract defense based on rules promulgated by this court in the exercise of its constitutional authority to supervise the practice of law in the jurisdiction. This court has jealously guarded its authority over the practice of law, not only promulgating the rules that govern the ethical practice of the law but also designing the machinery, including specific requirements and procedures, for being admitted, remaining in good standing, and being disqualified from the practice of law. See People v. Kanwal , 2014 CO 20, ¶ 6, 321 P.3d 494, 495-96. Unlike professional ethical codes promulgated according to the State Administrative Procedure Act, on the basis of authority expressly delegated by the General Assembly, like the Colorado State Board of Accountancy Rules of Professional Conduct, see §§ 12-2-101 to - 104, C.R.S. (2018), which in Mariani we compared to sources of public policy like statutory and constitutional provisions, 916 P.2d at 525-26, the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct are promulgated by this court, pursuant to its exclusive constitutional authority to supervise the practice of law, rather than according to any statutorily approved administrative procedures.

¶55 While the court of appeals has at times relied on the Rules of Professional Conduct as a source of public policy strictly for the purpose of interpreting engagement contracts relative to attorney fee provisions and exclusion from malpractice claims, see, e.g. , S. Colo. Orthopaedic Clinic Sports Med. & Arthritis Surgeons, P.C. v. Weinstein , 2014 COA 171, ¶¶ 1, 14-15, 343 P.3d 1044, 1045, 1047-48 (public policy codified in Colo. RPC 1.5(a) requires courts to impose a reasonableness requirement on attorney fee-shifting provision in employment contract); Norton Frickey, P.C. v. James B. Turner, P.C. , 94 P.3d 1266, 1266-67 (Colo. App. 2004) (contract to apportion attorney fees upon an attorney's departure from a law firm was not contrary to this policy embodied in Colo. RPC 1.5(a) ); Roberts v. Holland & Hart , 857 P.2d 492, 495-96 (Colo. App. 1993) (contractual assignment of legal malpractice claims contravenes public policy embodied in the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct that attorneys owe clients duties of loyalty and confidentiality), this court has not even gone that far. Unlike the majority, I see no merit in implicating delicate separation of powers questions by interpreting our Rules of Professional Conduct to affect matters of substantive law, rather than merely the practice of law.

¶56 Finally, because of the unique purposes and procedures of attorney discipline, I would make clear that apart from the fact of their occurrence and their impact on an attorney's status with regard to the practice of law, those procedures cannot affect his rights or liabilities in civil or criminal proceedings. If for no other reason, I believe the unique procedures provided for alleging and proving disciplinary violations, before a panel the majority of whom are lay members of the bar, preclude application of the doctrine of collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, to subsequent civil or criminal proceedings. While I appreciate the majority's attempt to avoid this question by finding that it was unnecessarily decided by the intermediate appellate court, I fail to see how any admission before us or allegation of the complaint below resolves the question, in light of the majority's newly created voidability standard, whether or not the contract in this case is actually void. Without (at least implicitly) relying on the evidence and findings of the Hearing Board, and without remanding for factual determinations concerning the communications and understanding of the parties, I fail to see how, despite its protestations to the contrary, the majority does not simply hold that in the absence of compliance with Rule 1.8's requirement for a writing, any contract between an attorney and client is simply void.

¶57 I find the majority's creation of a new public policy defense to contract formation, based on professional ethical codes in general, and the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct in particular, to be especially unfortunate where it seems so unnecessary. If the facts upon which the majority relies to find it impossible for Calvert to overcome the presumption are indeed conceded, it is difficult to understand why Mayberry would not be equally entitled to summary judgment on the basis of some of the aforementioned well-accepted defenses to contract formation, without reference to public policy at all; and even if not undisputed for purposes of summary judgment, proof of these defenses at trial would appear to be easily accomplished. Even if I did not so strongly reject the majority's reasoning, I would be disinclined to make new law with the potential for such broad and unpredictable impact, without considerably greater cause.

¶58 I therefore respectfully dissent.

I am authorized to state that JUSTICE SAMOUR joins in this dissent.

      Specifically, we granted certiorari to review the following issues:
      1. Whether the doctrine of issue preclusion can bar a disbarred attorney from relitigating in a civil suit against his former client factual issues decided by the attorney disciplinary hearing board, and whether the hearing board's finding that the attorney-plaintiff violated Rule 1.8(a) of the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct constitutes a factual issue for purposes of issue preclusion.
      2. Whether a contract between an attorney and his client that was formed in violation of Rule 1.8(a) of the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct is void as against public policy.
      3. Whether sanctions against the attorney for groundless and frivolous litigation stand.

      These facts are taken from the parties' filings and supporting affidavits.

      At the disciplinary hearing, Calvert testified that Mayberry "could have taken the money and done whatever she wanted with it. I had no agreement with her at all."

      Calvert conceded these facts in his briefing to this court and at oral argument.

      At the time of the filing of this appeal, the Weinhauer deed of trust remained on Mayberry's house.

      The trial court noted that even if issue preclusion did not apply, the only evidence submitted to the court regarding the existence of an oral agreement was "several statements given under oath by [Calvert] to the effect that he had no agreement, written or verbal, with Diane Mayberry regarding the money he gave her, but that he simply hoped she might repay him someday."

      The following exchange occurred:
      Court: Does Mr. Calvert get to retry in this case that he entered into an agreement with a client without having advised the client, and all of the things that 1.8 requires, does he get to retry that?
      Calvert's Counsel: No.

      The question of whether a client has to rebut a presumption that the contract is void to enforce a contract entered into in violation of Rule 1.8(a) is not before us. Therefore, we do not reach and express no opinion as to that question.

      Traditional contract defenses such as incapacity, duress, undue influence, and fraud in the inducement are affirmative defenses; as such, the client would bear the burden of proving these defenses. See generally Trimble v. City & Cty. of Denver , 697 P.2d 716 (Colo. 1985) ; Hanks v. McNeil Coal Corp. , 114 Colo. 578, 168 P.2d 256 (1946) ; Barrows v. McMurtry Mfg. Co. , 54 Colo. 432, 131 P. 430 (1913) ; Lighthall v. Moore , 2 Colo.App. 554, 31 P. 511 (1892).

      Mayberry submitted transcripts of Calvert's sworn testimony in support of her motion for summary judgment.

      Because we decline to reach the question of issue preclusion, we vacate the court of appeals' holding regarding that issue.