The relations between joint adventurers, mining partners and grubstakers are fiduciary. The one who takes title in his own name holds as trustee for his associates. The law of the resulting trust is applicable. 3 Lindley on Mines, sec. 858; Gamble v. Hanchett, 133 P. 936, 942-944, 947; Botsford v. Van Riper, 33 Nev. 156; Costello v. Scott, 30 Nev. 43; 33 C.J. 851, sec. 36; 14 Cal. Jur. 134; Nordholt v. Nordholt, 26 P. 599. 3. Contracts which the law could compel are binding. Tiffany, p. 392, par. 1, par. 2; Barrington v. Clarke, 21 Am. Dec. 432; Elliott v. Horn, 44 Am. Dec. 488; Starr v. Wright, 20 Ohio St. 97; Bridges v. Bidwell, 20 Neb. 185; Trader v. Jarvis, 23 W. Va. 100; Prouty v. Edgar, 6 Iowa, 353; Sheldon v. Newton, 3 Ohio St. 494.

The agreement must be definite, and parties claiming an interest in property located by a man on an alleged grubstake must prove that at the time the location was made he was working on the grubstake furnished by them, or pursuant to a specific agreement, usually one by the terms of which they were to furnish him a further grubstake if the one originally given was exhausted. The latter principle is well set forth in the Nevada case of Costello v. Scott, 93 P. 1. In that case the grubstake claimants had made several advances to Scott at his solicitation, shown by correspondence between them, in which it was agreed that he should make locations and they were to furnish him further money.

Instead, in considering whether an error affects substantial rights, we look to whether the error "so undermined the fundamental fairness of the trial as to cast serious doubt on the reliability of the judgment of conviction." Scott v. People, 2017 CO 16, ¶ 15, 390 P.3d 832, 835, abrogated on other grounds by Whiteaker v. People, 2024 CO 25, ¶ 25, 547 P.3d 1122, 1127–28. ¶13 Next, drawing on this court’s opinion in People v. Abu-Nantambu-El, 2019 CO 106, 454 P.3d 1044, the majority determined that Judge Hopkins’s failure to disqualify herself constituted structural error requiring reversal.

1 Whether the court of appeals erred in using a plain-error standard in light of Linnebur v. People, 2020 CO 79M, 476 P 3d 734.2. Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that under plain error, it does not matter whether the law was settled at the time the error occurred, so long as the error is "obvious" at the time of appeal, in contravention of this court’s holding in Scott v. People, 2017 CO 16[, 390 P.3d 832].The People raised only the second issue in their petition We added the first issue nostra sponte.

The "error must generally be so obvious that a trial judge should be able to avoid it without the benefit of an objection." Scott v. People , 2017 CO 16, ¶ 16, 390 P.3d 832, 835 (citing People v. Pollard , 2013 COA 31M, ¶ 39, 307 P.3d 1124, 1133 ). ¶33 Typically, the alleged error must violate "(1) a clear statutory command; (2) a well-settled legal principle; or (3) Colorado case law." Id. (quoting Pollard , ¶ 40, 307 P.3d at 1133 ).

Our supreme court has repeatedly recognized that, aside from structural error (which Walker does not assert), "we review all other errors, constitutional and nonconstitutional, that were not preserved by objection for plain error." Hagos , ¶ 14 ; see People v. Delgado , 2019 CO 82, ¶ 13, 450 P.3d 703 ; Scott v. People , 2017 CO 16, ¶ 12, 390 P.3d 832 ; Reyna-Abarca v. People , 2017 CO 15, ¶ 37, 390 P.3d 816 ; People v. Davis , 2015 CO 36M, ¶ 32, 352 P.3d 950 ; Martinez v. People , 2015 CO 16, ¶ 13, 344 P.3d 862. In particular, Colorado appellate courts have applied plain error review to unpreserved claims that a sentence is unconstitutional.

¶25 The prosecution argues that despite this recent trend in our caselaw, we should correct course and turn back. The state points out that even if we applied this automatic reversal rule in Reyna-Abarca, we applied a traditional plain error analysis in Scott v. People, 2017 CO 16, ¶¶ 16–18, 390 P.3d 832, 835, which we released the same day. While we acknowledge the tension between these two cases, we subsequently embraced automatic reversal for double jeopardy sentencing errors in both Friend and Rigsby.

. Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that under plain error, it does not matter whether the law was settled at the time the error occurred, so long as the error is "obvious" at the time of appeal, in contravention of this court's holding in Scott v. People, 2017 CO 16. DENIED AS TO ALL OTHER ISSUES.

An error is obvious when it contravenes a clear statutory command, a well-settled legal principle, or Colorado case law. Scott v. People , 2017 CO 16, ¶ 16, 390 P.3d 832, 835. "Moreover, an erroneous jury instruction does not normally constitute plain error where the issue is not contested at trial or where the record contains overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt."

Generally, an error is obvious when it contravenes a clear statutory command, a well-settled legal principle, or Colorado case law. Scott v. People , 2017 CO 16, ¶ 16, 390 P.3d 832, 835.¶29 We note that the People have asked that, if we review Wester-Gravelle's contention for plain error, we adopt the Supreme Court's articulation of the plain error standard in Olano , 507 U.S. at 732, 113 S.Ct. 1770.