People v. Baltazar
241 P.3d 941
| Colo. | 2010Background
- Baltazar charged with distribution of controlled substances, marijuana, conspiracy, and related offenses in Colorado.
- Baltazar moved to issue ex parte subpoenas duces tecum to third parties to avoid disclosure of defense information.
- District court granted ex parte subpoenas with in camera consideration, no disclosure to the prosecution, and subpoenas returnable to Baltazar.
- Order purported to allow disclosure only if Baltazar used information at trial and if required by Crim. P. 16.
- People sought relief under C.A.R. 21, arguing the district court erred in empowering an investigative, ex parte process.
- Colorado Supreme Court held the district court erred; case remanded for proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Baltazar has a constitutional right to ex parte subpoenas | Baltazar; exceeds Crim. P. 17(c). | Baltazar; constitutional entitlement to investigative ex parte process. | No; rule absolute to remand |
| Whether Crim. P. 17(c) permits ex parte investigative use | Spykstra limited to in-court production, not investigative tool. | Beckford and related federal interpretations support ex parte, investigative use. | No; Crim. P. 17(c) not an investigative tool |
| Whether Crim. P. 17(c) requires notice to opposing counsel | Ex parte subpoenas undermine prosecution’s right to see defense information. | Defendant seeks secrecy to protect defense strategy; | Notice required; ex parte procedure improper |
| What is the proper constitutional frame for the ruling | Discovery rights under due process/Confrontation/6th Amendment | No broad discovery beyond limited guarantees and compulsory process | Limited, not constitutional right to pretrial discovery |
Key Cases Cited
- Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 545 (U.S. 1977) (no general criminal discovery right)
- Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 (U.S. 1987) (trial right, not pretrial discovery)
- Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400 (U.S. 1988) (compulsory process culminates in serving subpoenas on witnesses)
- Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 (U.S. 1967) (compulsory process right as right to favorable witnesses)
- In re Martin Marietta Corp., 856 F.2d 619 (4th Cir. 1988) (compulsory process limitations cited by court)
- Spykstra, 234 P.3d 662 (Colo. 2010) (Crim. P. 17(c) not to be used as investigative tool; standing to quash)
- Beckford, 964 F. Supp. 1010 (E.D. Va. 1997) (federal ex parte considerations rejected as controlling)
- Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (U.S. 1974) (Rule 17(c) not for broad discovery)