People v. Rodriguez-Nunez.
2026 COA 48. No. 25CA2183. Murder in the First Degree—Release on Bail—Setting and Selection of Type of Bond—Types of Bond Set by Court—Colorado Constitution—Right to Bail—Proof Evident Exception.
June 4, 2026
Rodriguez-Nunez was indicted on one count of first degree murder after deliberation for a homicide committed in 2021. He was 16 years old at the time of the alleged offense. The prosecution charged him as an adult by filing the grand jury indictment and a notice of direct filing in the district court. In 2025, the district court initially set a $5 million cash bond without hearing arguments from the parties, and it scheduled a bond modification hearing. At that hearing, defense counsel applied for a bond reduction and a change to the bond type. But based on the indictment, the case facts, and the presumed intent of Amendment 1 to the Colorado Constitution that restored the “proof evident exception” to the right to bail for persons accused of first degree murder, the district court denied the request.
Rodriguez-Nunez petitioned for review of the district court’s order denying his request for bond modification, contending that the district court erred in relying on legislative history. Colo. Const. art. II, § 19 provides an absolute right to bail for most criminal defendants, pending resolution of the charges against them. But this right doesn’t apply to defendants charged with a capital offense when proof is evident or the presumption is great that the accused committed the charged crime. This proof evident exception was eliminated when the General Assembly repealed the death penalty for offenses charged on or after July 1, 2020. Following that repeal, the Colorado Supreme Court in People v. Smith, 2023 CO 40, ¶ 31 determined that “capital offenses” means offenses punishable by the death penalty, so all criminal defendants, including those charged with first degree murder, had the right to bail for offenses charged on or after July 1, 2020. In response to Smith, voters approved Amendment 1 to the Colorado Constitution, which restored the proof evident exception to the right to bail for persons accused of first degree murder. The amendment applies only to offenses committed on or after December 17, 2024. The court of appeals held that the proof evident exception does not apply to a defendant accused of first degree murder for a homicide charged after the death penalty was abolished but committed before the proof evident exception was restored. Here, the proof evident exception to the right to bail did not apply to Rodriguez-Nunez because he was charged with committing the offense in 2021, which was after the abolition of the death penalty in 2020 eliminated the proof evident exception under People v. Smith, 2023 CO 40, but before the voters restored the exception for first degree murder by constitutional amendment in 2024. Accordingly, the trial court erred by assuming that the intent of Amendment I was to prohibit bail for first degree murders committed before the amendment was effective.
Rodriguez-Nunez also argued that the court erred by imposing an excessive bond that functioned as a de facto no-bond hold and failing to make sufficient determinations and factual findings to establish that a $5 million cash bond was necessary and reasonable to ensure his court appearances or to protect the community. Here, the district court erred by explicitly setting a cash bond amount that was so high that it functioned as a bond denial. Second, the court didn’t consider whether the type of bond selected would reasonably ensure Rodriguez-Nunez’s appearance in court or protect the community. Third, the record shows that the district court refused the modification request without making meaningful findings regarding the relevant statutory factors.
Rodriguez-Nunez further asserted that the district court’s determination for a monetary bond must include considerations of attainability. He maintained that setting an unattainable monetary bond condition constitutes a deprivation of liberty, so the prosecution should be required to provide clear and convincing evidence showing that the unattainability condition is necessary to reasonably ensure appearances or protect community safety. However, neither the constitution nor bail statutes categorically preclude unattainable monetary bond conditions. Rather, a court may set monetary conditions, regardless of attainability, if the court makes factual findings showing that those conditions are reasonable and necessary under the circumstances.
The petition was granted and the case was remanded for further hearing.