2020 CO 68
Colo.2020Background
- Two unrelated Gilpin County misdemeanor cases (People v. Lucy; People v. Meresa) had six‑month speedy‑trial deadlines set to expire April 9, 2020; jury trials were scheduled for March 17, 2020.
- Chief Judge issued administrative orders in March 2020 vacating jury trials through May dates because of the COVID‑19 pandemic.
- The county court vacated both trials; the prosecution moved for continuances and sought tolling of the speedy‑trial period under § 18‑1‑405(6)(g)(I), requesting factual findings supporting tolling.
- The county court continued the cases beyond the speedy‑trial deadline without resolving the prosecution’s tolling motions or making required findings; it described its continuances as preliminary and cited public‑health concerns.
- The prosecution filed an original Rule 21 petition asking the Colorado Supreme Court to rule whether a continuance based on a public‑health crisis may toll the statutory speedy‑trial period.
- The Supreme Court granted relief, held that tolling under § 18‑1‑405(6)(g)(I) can apply for public‑health reasons if the prosecution shows three requirements, found the county court erred, made the rule absolute, and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 18‑1‑405(6)(g)(I) authorizes tolling when a continuance is based on a public‑health crisis (COVID‑19) | People: Yes — a public‑health crisis can make evidence "unavailable," permitting a prosecutor’s continuance with up to six months tolling if prosecution shows due diligence and reasonable expectation evidence will be available later | Defendants: No or unclear — continuances tied to administrative orders/public health should not automatically toll speedy trial absent specific findings or defendant consent | Held: Yes — subsection (6)(g)(I) covers continuances where evidence is unavailable due to a public‑health crisis, but tolling requires the prosecution to show (1) evidence material is unavailable because of the crisis, (2) prosecution exercised due diligence, and (3) reasonable grounds the evidence will be available at the later date; trial court must make findings and a final ruling. |
| Whether the Colorado Supreme Court should exercise original jurisdiction under C.A.R. 21 | People: Rule 21 is appropriate because interlocutory review is the only adequate remedy and the issue is of statewide importance | Defendants: Alternative relief via C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4) was available | Held: Court exercised original jurisdiction — Rule 21 relief appropriate given potential lack of remedy on appeal and novel statewide issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. McMurtry, 122 P.3d 237 (Colo. 2005) (speedy‑trial right and statute’s purpose)
- People v. Rosas, 459 P.3d 540 (Colo. 2020) (original jurisdiction / Rule 21 framework)
- People v. DeGreat, 461 P.3d 11 (Colo. 2020) (allocation of burden for speedy‑trial compliance)
- Marquez v. Dist. Court, 613 P.2d 1302 (Colo. 1980) (trial court must make adequate record for appellate review)
- People v. Cali, 459 P.3d 516 (Colo. 2020) (statutory‑construction principles)
- In re People in Interest of A.A., 312 P.3d 1170 (Colo. 2013) (focus on legislature’s chosen language)
- Cowen v. People, 431 P.3d 215 (Colo. 2018) (use of dictionary to determine plain meaning)
- Colo. Dep’t of Revenue v. Creager Mercantile Co., 395 P.3d 741 (Colo. 2017) (court may not add words to statutes)