2014 CO 58
Colo.2014Background
- Owens and Ray sought discovery of the prosecution’s investigation into their post-conviction claims under unitary review; the district court ruled Crim. P. 16 does not apply to post-conviction prep but Brady/constitutional duties may require disclosure of exculpatory material regardless of timing; this court issued a rule to show cause addressing the district court’s narrow reading.
- Crim. P. 16 governs pretrial materials; Crim. P. 32.2 and the unitary review scheme structure disclosures through new counsel and a single appellate process.
- The death-penalty unitary review requires district court resolution of all post-conviction claims before appellate review; new counsel are appointed for post-conviction and appeal.
- District court ordered discovery in January 2012 and Owens sought further discovery in 2012 and 2018 regarding juror misconduct and other post-conviction claims; Ray’s standing to seek discovery of Owens’s claims was unsettled.
- The court ultimately remands, applying the due process standard from Rodrigues and clarifying that Brady-like duties extend to possibly exculpatory material regardless of the trial-time scope, without expanding Crim. P. 16 beyond its trial-related scope.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Crim. P.16 apply to post-conviction discovery in unitary review? | Owens argues Crim. P.16 should extend to post-conviction prep. | State contends Crim. P.16 does not extend beyond trial. | No; Crim. P.16 does not extend to post-conviction prep. |
| Should the prosecution’s post-trial discovery include possibly exculpatory information under due process? | Rodrigues requires broader disclosure of possibly exculpatory material. | Disclosures must be limited by materiality and statutory framework. | Yes, disclosure of possibly exculpatory material is required under due process. |
| Does Rodriguez govern discovery in unitary review for possibly exculpatory evidence? | Rodrigues supports broader district-court ordering. | Rodrigues does not expand beyond its context. | Rodrigues governs, requiring evaluation and potential disclosure of possibly exculpatory evidence. |
| Is Brady material scope applicable post-trial in unitary review? | Brady material continues to apply through automatic review. | Brady is limited in scope to pretrial contexts. | Brady-like duties extend to unitary review for exculpatory and material information. |
| Did district court err in treating Crim. P.16 as exclusive source of discovery? | District court treated Crim. P.16 as controlling beyond its scope. | Rules must be read within the unitary review framework. | District court erred in treating Crim. P.16 as controlling beyond trial; but its result aligned with limiting scope. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rodrigues v. People, 786 P.2d 1082 (Colo. 1989) (advocates broader disclosure in death-penalty unitary review)
- Rodriguez v. People, 786 P.2d 1079 (Colo. 1989) (promulgation of rules and discovery standards in death penalty cases)
- Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 545 (U.S. 1977) ( Brady material relates to favorable evidence, not witness lists for unfavorables)
- Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (U.S. 1999) (impeachment/favorable evidence standards; materiality considerations)
- United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (U.S. 1976) (define Brady material and disclosure expectations)