The People of the State of Colorado, Petitioner v. Shannon Nelson, Respondent — Hood, J., Dissenting

Summary

In dissent, Justice Hood would have held that Colorado could not retain costs, fees, and restitution paid under convictions that were reversed and followed by an acquittal. She reasoned that due process and the presumption of innocence required restoration of Nelson's property, and that the criminal court possessed ancillary jurisdiction to order a refund without requiring a separate civil action. The dissent also concluded that the Exoneration Act was an inadequate remedy because it served different purposes, imposed a heightened innocence burden, and did not address misdemeanor convictions. The majority instead required Nelson to pursue relief under the Exoneration Act.