People ex rel. E.G.
368 P.3d 946
| Colo. | 2016Background
- Defendant E.G. was convicted of two counts of sexual assault on a child occurring in his grandmother's basement; before trial he sought court-ordered access to the grandmother's private home to view and photograph the alleged crime scene.
- The trial court denied the motion, reasoning it lacked authority to force a private homeowner to open her residence.
- The court of appeals held a trial court could order such access (subject to a relevance/material/necessity showing and balancing the nonparty's interests) but affirmed the denial because E.G. failed to meet that test.
- The Colorado Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether a trial court has authority to order defendant access to a nonparty's private residence and, if so, under what standard.
- The Supreme Court held the trial court lacked authority to order access to a nonparty’s private home under the Constitution, Colorado Rules of Criminal Procedure, or statute and therefore affirmed on alternate grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a trial court has authority to order a nonparty to open a private residence for defense inspection | People: Court lacked authority; must protect nonparty privacy and Fourth Amendment interests | E.G.: Court has authority under due process/compulsory process to order access where necessary for defense | Held: Trial court lacked authority under Constitution, Crim. P., or statute to force access to a nonparty home |
| Whether Crim. P. 16 or other discovery rules authorize court-ordered access to third-party residences | People: Crim. P.16 governs disclosure by government only, not third parties | E.G.: Discovery principles and fairness require access beyond government-held evidence | Held: Crim. P.16 applies to government possession/control and does not authorize ordering a nonparty to open a home |
| Whether the Sixth Amendment compulsory process or Rule 17 subpoena power permits pretrial investigatory access to a private home | People: Rule 17/compulsory process secures in-court testimony/production, not investigatory home entry | E.G.: Compulsory process includes right to compel material evidence from third parties | Held: Compulsory process and Rule 17 do not authorize courts to order a nonparty to allow pretrial access to her private home |
| Whether due process or confrontation guarantees a right to inspect a third-party crime scene | People: Due process requires disclosure only of favorable, material government-held evidence; Confrontation is a trial right, not blanket pretrial discovery | E.G.: Denial of access implicated fundamental fairness and the right to present a defense | Held: Due process does not create a freestanding right to court-ordered entry of a nonparty home; Confrontation Clause not implicated here |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecutor must disclose favorable, material evidence in its possession)
- United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985) (Brady disclosure standard reiterated; government obligation to disclose favorable material)
- Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 (1967) (compulsory process protects right to present witnesses; does not create general investigatory access)
- Walker v. People, 126 Colo. 135, 248 P.2d 287 (1952) (Colorado precedent that discovery is statutory and courts lack freestanding authority to order criminal discovery)
- People v. Spykstra, 234 P.3d 662 (Colo. 2010) (Rule 17(c) provides the constitutionally required mechanism for third-party material; limited subpoena scope; not an investigatory tool)
- People v. Chard, 808 P.2d 351 (Colo. 1991) (permitting involuntary examinations of complainants in narrow circumstances; treated as distinguishable)
- Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (1973) (Confrontation and fundamental fairness principles discussed; not a basis for pretrial scene access here)