People v. Vlassis, 247 P.3d 196

The prosecution sought relief under C.A.R. 21 from a trial court order requiring disclosure of witness statements in prosecution notes and emails.
The trial court held that Crim. P. 16, Part I(a)(1)(I) automatically requires disclosure of any witness statements recorded in notes, including those by prosecutors, regardless of exculpatory content.
The court also allowed automatic disclosure of notes from police or prosecutors and planned in camera review for work-product issues, while excluding work product or administrative communications from disclosure.
Defense later requested handwritten notes and emails containing witness statements in preparing for a second trial, citing People v. District Court, 790 P.2d 332 (Colo. 1990).
The trial court issued its written order on September 23, 2010, and the prosecution sought relief from the order via C.A.R. 21, triggering an original proceeding in the Colorado Supreme Court.
The underlying convictions were vacated in 2010 for a new trial; personnel changes and a new email server occurred in the interim, affecting discovery issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is the original proceeding proper	Original jurisdiction appropriate due to extraordinary circumstances.	Not an appropriate interlocutory appeal; mootness risk.	Original jurisdiction properly exercised.
Whether automatic disclosure of prosecutor notes under Crim. P. 16 is required	Notes containing witness statements must be automatically disclosed.	Notes are work product and not automatically discoverable.	Prosecutor notes are not automatically discoverable; not required under Crim. P. 16, I(a)(1)(I).
What then governs disclosure of prosecutor notes containing witness statements	Exculpatory statements must be disclosed; discretionary disclosure possible if relevant and unavailable elsewhere.	Same as plaintiff’s; automatic disclosure not appropriate; rely on exculpatory or discretionary mechanisms.	Exculpatory disclosure under I(a)(2) and discretionary disclosure under I(d)(1) remain available; not automatic under I(a)(1)(I).

People v. District Court, 790 P.2d 332 (Colo. 1990) (distinguishes automatic disclosure from witness statements in prosecutor notes)
In re Marriage of Hall, 241 P.3d 540 (Colo. 2010) (addressing the use of original jurisdiction under C.A.R. 21)