2013 CO 31
Colo.2013Background
- People filed an original proceeding under C.A.R. 21 to quash subpoenas on the alleged child-victim's parents to appear at a preliminary hearing and to bring the minor.
- People argued the victim's testimony was unnecessary for probable cause and that requiring appearance could cause psychological harm.
- County court did not rule before the preliminary hearing; People sought a stay and filed CAR 21 petition, later leading to a court order denying pre-hearing ruling.
- The alleged abuse occurred when the victim was 11–13 (victim is now 17); subpoenas issued under Crim. P. 17(a) and (d).
- The Court vacated the denial of the request to consider quashing prehearing, holding the trial court abused its discretion in not ruling beforehand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing of the DA to move to quash | People have independent interest in case management and preventing witness harassment. | Respondent contends no standing for the DA to challenge third-party subpoenas. | Yes; DA has standing to move to quash. |
| Prehearing consideration of the motion to quash | Quashing before the hearing protects the child from harm and unnecessary appearance. | The court may address the motion only after some proceedings or evidence. | Abused discretion to refuse prehearing consideration; should rule prehearing. |
| Authority to quash witness subpoenas prior to preliminary hearing | Rex v. Sullivan supports prehearing quash when testimony is unnecessary. | Some view that Rex allows prehearing quash only after hearing prosecution evidence. | Court may quash prehearing if testimony is unnecessary. |
| Necessity of the child's testimony for probable cause | Child testimony may be unnecessary for probable cause; prehearing quash is warranted. | Defense argues to preserve all avenues to testimony and is wary of limits on confrontation. | Child's testimony unnecessary for probable cause in this context; quash appropriate prehearing. |
| Harm to the child from attendance | Attendance could cause harm even if not called to testify. | Attendance is part of process and not inherently harmful. | Harm risk present; prehearing ruling required to avoid harm. |
Key Cases Cited
- Spykstra v. People, 234 P.3d 662 (Colo. 2010) (DA standing to challenge subpoenas; independent interest in prosecution)
- Rex v. Sullivan, 575 P.2d 408 (Colo. 1978) (preliminary hearing scope; authority to quash witness subpoenas for child-victim)
- Williams v. Dist. Court, 700 P.2d 549 (Colo. 1985) (trial subpoena broadness; separation of mini-trial aims)
- McDonald v. District Court, 576 P.2d 169 (Colo. 1978) (eyewitness designation; relevance to probable cause not dispositive here)
- Losavio v. Dist. Court, 533 P.2d 32 (Colo. 1975) (preliminary hearing purpose and limits on testimony)