2017 CO 112
Colo.2017Background
- Epps was charged with attempting to influence a public servant, stalking, and harassment related to threatening Facebook messages to his probation officer.
- After a mistrial, the alleged victim’s husband Washburn had an antagonistic courtroom encounter with Epps, observed by a courtroom deputy.
- The deputy district attorney prosecuting the case spoke with Washburn about the encounter and Washburn’s statements to him.
- Epps endorsed the deputy district attorney as a witness to testify about Washburn’s statements and moved to disqualify the deputy as prosecutor.
- The district court allowed the deputy to testify and disqualified the entire district attorney’s office, prompting the People to seek interlocutory review.
- The Colorado Supreme Court reversed, holding the district court abused its discretion and remanded for proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court properly disqualified the DA under 20-1-107(2). | Epps argues disqualification was warranted under the statute's third prong due to special circumstances. | People contend no proper basis to disqualify the DA's office; objection was not properly construed as a request for disqualification. | Disqualification not warranted; district court abused discretion. |
| Whether the deputy district attorney’s testimony would have been of sufficient consequence to deny a fair trial. | Epps contends the deputy’s testimony could be crucial to impeach Washburn and affect trial outcomes. | People argue the testimony would be merely impeachment with no direct effect on guilt; not enough for special circumstances. | Not sufficient to deny a fair trial; no extreme special circumstances. |
| Whether the deputy district attorney’s objections and actions preserve any right to disqualification under the statute. | Epps argues the deputy did not object in a way that would negate disqualification under 20-1-107(2). | People contend the deputy’s actions do not preserve a request for disqualification. | Objections did not establish a request for disqualification; proper standard not met. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Palomo, 31 P.3d 879 (Colo. 2001) (district courts have broad discretion in disqualification decisions)
- Kendrick, 396 P.3d 1124 (Colo. 2017) (standard for disqualification under 20-1-107(2))
- Rael v. People, 395 P.3d 772 (Colo. 2017) (talimanic necessity for preservation of arguments; discernment of objections)
- Pease v. Dist. Court, 708 P.2d 800 (Colo. 1985) (testimony that bears on guilt or is directly relevant deemed substantial)
- Garcia, 698 P.2d 801 (Colo. 1985) (deputy district attorney testimony to prove element may justify disqualification)
- Riboni v. Dist. Court, 586 P.2d 9 (Colo. 1978) (impeachment concerns and availability of others to testify)
- People v. Loper, 241 P.3d 543 (Colo. 2010) (extreme 'special circumstances' required for disqualification)
- People v. Chavez, 139 P.3d 649 (Colo. 2006) (extreme circumstances when related to prior attorney-client relations)