Harris v. District Court of City and County of Denver, 92SA288
| Decision Date | 11 January 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 92SA288,92SA288 |
| Parties | Maurice HARRIS, Petitioner, v. The DISTRICT COURT OF the CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, and William G. Meyer, one of the Judges thereof, Respondents. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
David F. Vela, State Public Defender, Robin A. Carey, Lurix E. Johnson, Deputy State Public Defenders, Denver, for petitioner.
Norman S. Early, Jr., Dist. Atty., Second Judicial Dist., Nathan B. Coats, Chief Deputy Dist. Atty., Denver, for respondents.
The petitioner, Maurice Harris, has filed this original proceeding pursuant to C.A.R. 21, seeking an order directing the respondent, the District Court in and for the City and County of Denver, to order a new preliminary hearing in a criminal proceeding filed against the petitioner. Having issued a rule to show cause why the requested relief should not be granted, we now make the rule absolute.
The petitioner is charged with one count of murder in the first degree 1 and one count of assault in the second degree. 2 On March 11, 1992, a preliminary hearing was conducted by the Denver County Court to determine whether probable cause existed to support the charges. The prosecution presented the testimony of Demetric Stubblefield and Lorenzo Martinez Chavez, both of whom were eyewitnesses to the crime, and Denver Police Detective Joe Russell. All three witnesses were cross-examined by the petitioner's attorney. The county court found probable cause and bound the petitioner over to the district court for trial.
The petitioner subsequently requested and received a transcript of the preliminary hearing. However, due to mechanical defects in the recording equipment and Stubblefield's failure to keep his voice at the required recording level, Stubblefield's testimony could not be transcribed. Substantial portions of the testimony of Chavez and Russell also were inaudible and thus could not be transcribed.
On May 7, 1992, petitioner moved for a new preliminary hearing. The district court denied the motion.
Matters of pretrial discovery are generally committed to the discretion of the trial court, and review of orders pertaining to discovery issues is normally achieved by appeal. Kerwin v. District Court, 649 P.2d 1086, 1088 (Colo.1982). However, an original proceeding may prove appropriate when a trial court's ruling will have a significant effect on a party's ability to litigate the merits of the controversy and the damage to a party cannot be cured upon appeal. Id.; see also Sanchez v. District Court, 624 P.2d 1314, 1316-17 (Colo.1981). The party invoking the original jurisdiction of this court has the burden of establishing circumstances justifying the exercise of this court's discretionary authority under C.A.R. 21. Miller v. District Court, 737 P.2d 834, 840 (Colo.1987) (citing Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. District Court, 140 Colo. 190, 194, 343 P.2d 535, 537 (1959)). The petitioner also bears the burden of establishing, when applicable, that the respondent court has seriously abused its discretion. Brewer v. District Court, 655 P.2d 819, 820 (Colo.1982); see Halaby, McCrea & Cross v. Hoffman, 831 P.2d 902, 905 (Colo.1992).
The petitioner argues that the district court improperly denied his request for a second preliminary hearing. He also argues that the district court's order constitutes a violation of his constitutional right to due process of law and equal protection of the laws because in this case the absence of a complete transcript of the preliminary hearing substantially impairs his ability to construct a defense of self-defense and to impeach the eyewitness testimony of Stubblefield and Chavez at trial. The petitioner further states that in two other cases two other Denver district court judges granted identical defense motions under substantially similar circumstances. While we are not prepared to conclude in this original proceeding that the district court's order violated the petitioner's constitutional rights, we do conclude that in the circumstances of this case the district court abused its discretion in denying the petitioner's motion.
An accused has a statutory right to a preliminary hearing before a judge to determine whether probable cause exists to permit trial of the charged offense. § 16-5-301, 8A C.R.S. (1991 Supp.). The prosecution bears the burden of proving probable cause, and the defendant has the right to cross-examine the prosecution's witnesses and introduce evidence. Crim.P. 5(a)(4)(II); Crim.P. 7(h)(3). If the prosecution fails to meet its burden, the presiding judge must discharge the defendant and dismiss the charging document. Crim.P. 5(a)(4)(IV); Crim.P. 7(h)(4).
A preliminary hearing is designed to provide judicial determination that probable cause exists to bind an accused over for trial. People v. Ayala, 770 P.2d 1265, 1267 (Colo.1989). We have emphasized that a preliminary hearing is not intended to be a mini-trial or to afford the defendant an opportunity to effect discovery. Blevins v. Tihonovich, 728 P.2d 732, 734 (Colo.1986); McDonald v. District Court, 195 Colo. 159, 161, 576 P.2d 169, 171 (1978); Rex v. Sullivan, 194 Colo. 568, 571, 575 P.2d 408, 410 (1978). Because of the limited nature of a preliminary hearing, a defendant may not conduct discovery prior to a preliminary hearing. People v. Quinn, 183 Colo. 245, 250-51, 516 P.2d 420, 422-23 (1973). Furthermore, a defendant is not entitled to compel the victim of an alleged offense to testify at a preliminary hearing. Blevins, 728 P.2d at 734; Rex, 194 Colo. at 572, 575 P.2d at 411. However, once a witness has been called by the prosecution at a preliminary hearing, a defendant has a right to conduct reasonable cross-examination of the witness on the issue of probable cause. Kuypers v. District Court, 188 Colo. 332, 336, 534 P.2d 1204, 1207 (1975). Furthermore, a defendant is entitled to call an eyewitness to testify at a preliminary hearing if the witness is available in court and the prosecution's evidence consists almost entirely of hearsay testimony. McDonald, 195 Colo. at 162, 576 P.2d at 171.
In addition to providing judicially enforced safeguards to prevent unlawful detentions and unwarranted trials, a preliminary hearing provides a defendant several benefits which may be helpful at trial. In Coleman v. Alabama, 399 U.S. 1, 90 S.Ct. 1999, 26 L.Ed.2d 387 (1970), the Supreme Court recognized that the preliminary hearing provided by an Alabama statute afforded a defendant with opportunities to acquire a vital impeachment tool for subsequent use in cross-examining prosecution witnesses at trial, to preserve favorable testimony of witnesses who do not appear at the subsequent trial, and to discover the prosecution's case and thus to make possible the preparation of a proper defense. Id. at 9, 90 S.Ct. at 2003. These benefits are useless, however, in the absence of an accurate and complete transcript of essential portions of a preliminary hearing.
We have previously emphasized the trial preparation benefits arising from preliminary hearings. In Gonzales v. District Court, 198 Colo. 505, 602 P.2d 857 (1979), we held that the state must provide a transcript of a preliminary hearing at the request of an indigent defendant in a case where the transcript is necessary for an effective defense. In Gonzales, the defendant, who was indigent and was charged with first degree murder, filed a motion requesting a transcript of the preliminary hearing at no cost. The district court granted the motion in part but denied the motion with respect to the testimony of three witnesses who had testified at the preliminary hearing. In an original proceeding we concluded that the district court abused its discretion in denying the defendant's request for a complete transcript of the preliminary hearing. Gonzales, 198 Colo. at 507, 602 P.2d at...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hayes v. District Court In and For City and County of Denver, 92SA267
...discovery are committed to trial court discretion, and review of discovery orders is normally limited to appeal. Harris v. District Court, 843 P.2d 1316, 1318 (Colo.1993) (citing Kerwin v. District Court, 649 P.2d 1086, 1088 (Colo.1982)). However, we find the exercise of original jurisdicti......
-
People v. Pennington
...longer be charged with felony escape, the district court should have simply dismissed the felony escape charge. Cf. Harris v. Dist. Ct. , 843 P.2d 1316, 1319 (Colo. 1993) (if the prosecution cannot establish probable cause, the charged offense must be dismissed). ¶ 29 The district court ass......
-
People v. District Court of Arapahoe County, 94SA394
...to trial court discretion, and review of discovery orders is normally limited to appeal. Hayes, 854 P.2d at 1243; Harris v. District Court, 843 P.2d 1316, 1318 (Colo.1993). Crouch argues that the trial court's ruling at issue here is an appealable order or, alternatively, that the People sh......
-
People v. Thornton
...Court I), 803 P.2d 193, 196 (Colo.1990) (quoting § 16-1-104(14), 8A C.R.S. (1986)); accord, e.g., Harris v. District Court (District Court II), 843 P.2d 1316, 1319 (Colo.1993). "The standard for finding probable cause requires only that the prosecution present evidence sufficient to induce ......