People v. Angel
277 P.3d 231
Colo.2012Background
- Original proceeding to determine scope of prosecutorial work product under Crim. P. 16(I)(e)(1).
- Trial court held that 16(I)(e)(1) protects only materials prepared for the case before the court, not prior related investigations.
- Prosecution withheld an internal PowerPoint and witness interview notes, claiming work product protection under 16(I)(e)(1).
- Angel sought disclosure of the investigation into Deputy Miller and related conduct; People disclosed most files but these two items.
- Trial court ordered disclosure; on certiorari, Colorado Supreme Court reversed and held 16(I)(e)(1) protects opinion work product in anticipation of any prosecution; remanded for in camera review.
- Case remains to determine whether the contested Miller-investigation materials are opinion work product.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of Crim. P. 16(I)(e)(1) protection | People argue protection extends to all prosecutorial work product. | Angel argues protection limited to the case before the court; not to other investigations. | Prosecutorial opinion work product extends to any anticipated prosecution. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Dist. Court, 790 P.2d 332 (Colo. 1990) (prosecutorial work product mirrors common law rule)
- F.T.C. v. Grolier, Inc., 462 U.S. 19 (U.S. 1983) (survivability of work product to subsequent litigation in federal civil context)
- Gilmore v. Michigan, 564 N.W.2d 158 (Mich. App. 1997) (protects opinion work product in related investigations)
- Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (U.S. 1947) (work product protection grounded in attorney mental impressions)
- Nobles v. United States, 422 U.S. 225 (U.S. 1975) (purpose of work product to shield mental processes in litigation)
- Martinez v. People, 970 P.2d 469 (Colo. 1998) (protects the rationale behind work product doctrine in Colorado)