June 7, 2010
People in the Interest of A.D.T Abuse of Discretion / In Camera Review of Social Services Records / Disclosure of Exculpatory Evidence
Issues: Whether the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to conduct an in camera review on 8 of the 9 social services volumes?
Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it refused to disclose exculpatory evidence contained in the volume it did review?
Held: Yes and yes.
Synopsis and Reasoning: The Court of Appeals basically found that the trial court completely abandoned its duty by disregarding the statute, C.R.S. §19-1-307(2)(f), that permitted review of all 9 volumes of social services records the defense subpoenaed into court. Further, the CofA found that due process mandated disclosure of exculpatory evidence from volume 9 to A.D.T.
People In the Interest of A.D.T.: http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_of_Appeals/opinion/2010/09CA0848.pdf
People v. Gess Detainers
1. The CofA held that because Mr. Gess was on parole while being held by the Denver County Jail, he was in the custody of the Department of Corrections (parole is confinement).
2. The UMDDA applied to Mr. Gess despite allegedly committing his offenses after his release from prison.
3. Mr. Gess, despite deficiencies, substantially complied with the UMDDA.
4. When Mr. Gess dismissed his court appointed lawyer, hired his own lawyer, and then fired that lawyer, the time period for compliance with the UMDDA tolled.
People v. Gess: http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_of_Appeals/opinion/2010/07CA1998.pdf