People Of The State Of Colo. v. Perez
| Decision Date | 13 September 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. 10SA33.,10SA33. |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Alejandro PEREZ, Plaintiff-Appellant. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Carol Chambers, District Attorney, Eighteenth Judicial District, Andrew Cooper, Chief Deputy District Attorney, Centennial, Colorado, Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Castle & Castle PC, James A. Castle, Judy L. Lucero, Denver, Colorado, Attorneys for Defendant-Appellee.
In this interlocutory appeal by the prosecution, we review the trial court's order disqualifying the Office of the District Attorney for the Eighteenth Judicial District. 1 The trial court found that the District Attorney's Office received $91,648.19 from the Department of Corrections for the costs of prosecuting the defendant, Alejandro Perez. According to the court, this financial assistance violated section 20-1-302, C.R.S. (2009) because the boards of county commissioners comprising the Eighteenth Judicial District did not approve of the funding. 2 The trial court held that this financial interest of the District Attorney's Office and alleged irregularity of the funding arrangement constituted an independent and sufficient reason to disqualify the District Attorney's Office under section 20-1-107(2), C.R.S. (2009). In so holding, the trial court implicitly read the statutory term “financial interest” in isolation from the phrase “that would render it unlikely that the defendant would receive a fair trial,” the statute's “fair trial” clause. In other words, the trial court ruled that a district attorney can be disqualified for possessing a financial interest irrespective of whether that financial interest implicates the defendant's right to a fair trial.
The People argue that the statute's “fair trial” clause modifies the term “financial interest.” In other words, the People assert that a district attorney should only be disqualified for possessing a financial interest if that financial interest implicates the defendant's right to a fair trial. Under this construction of the statute, because Perez presented no evidence that the funding arrangement would prevent him from receiving a fair trial, the People claim that the trial court's order disqualifying the district attorney is erroneous. Arguing to the contrary, Perez supports the trial court's order, reading the statutory phrase “financial interest” as constituting an independent basis for disqualification. We agree with the People's argument.
We construe the statutory phrase “financial interest” in section 20-1-107(2) in the same way we construed the phrase “personal interest” in the statute. See People ex rel. N.R., 139 P.3d 671, 676 (Colo.2006); People v. C.V., 64 P.3d 272, 275-76 (Colo.2003). By this construction, we hold that a district attorney's or her office's financial interest is a statutorily authorized basis for disqualification only if the financial interest would render it unlikely that the defendant would receive a fair trial. For a financial interest to implicate the fairness of a trial, it must be outcome dependent or have a substantial impact on the district attorney's discretionary functions, such that the district attorney's conduct interferes with, is contrary to, or is inconsistent with her duty of seeking justice. Here, the defendant presented no evidence that the funding arrangement between the District Attorney's Office and the Department of Corrections would render it unlikely that he would receive a fair trial. Hence, we reverse the order of the trial court on this issue.
In addition to disqualifying the District Attorney's Office for possessing a financial interest in the litigation, the trial court disqualified the District Attorney's Office on two alternative grounds: (1) that the additional facts of the financial arrangement provided a sufficient basis to disqualify the district attorney under the inherent authority of the trial court; and (2) that the funding arrangement between the District Attorney's Office and the Department of Corrections constituted “special circumstances” warranting disqualification under section 20-1-107(2).
Addressing the trial court's two alternative grounds, we have construed section 20-1-107(2) to be the sole means by which a trial court may disqualify a district attorney. N.R., 139 P.3d at 675. However, we did not decide whether the statute conflicts with the judiciary's inherent authority to disqualify a district attorney. Id. at 675 n. 3. In a previous appeal ( Perez I ), we followed our earlier construction of section 20-1-107(2), wherein we held that the financial arrangement in this case did not constitute a “special circumstance” rendering it unlikely that Perez would receive a fair trial. People v. Perez (Perez I), 201 P.3d 1220, 1234 (Colo.2009). We held that the special circumstances provision of section 20-1-107(2) requires a showing that facts exist rendering it unlikely that the defendant would receive a fair trial. Id.; see also People v. Lincoln, 161 P.3d 1274, 1279 (Colo.2007). In Perez I, the defendant failed to meet this burden to show it was unlikely he would receive a fair trial. Similarly, in this appeal, Perez presented no evidence that the additional details he introduced concerning the funding arrangement would render it unlikely that he would receive a fair trial.
The trial court's order disqualifying the District Attorney's Office was based on its conclusion that either special circumstances existed to disqualify the district attorney under the statute or that sufficient facts existed to disqualify under the inherent authority of the trial court. 3 The trial court's conclusion that either special circumstances existed or that sufficient additional facts existed contravenes our precedent because Perez presented no evidence that the funding arrangement would render it unlikely that he would receive a fair trial. Because this court recently addressed the governing law concerning the relationship between a fair trial and special circumstances, we do not address these arguments in the body of our opinion. We reverse and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
This case represents the second interlocutory appeal of the trial court's disqualification of the District Attorney's Office based upon aspects of the funding arrangement between the Department of Corrections and the District Attorney's Office.
Perez, while in the custody of the Department of Corrections, was charged with first degree murder and conspiracy to commit first degree murder for the death of another inmate. The trial court ruled that probable cause existed for the charges to bind the case over for trial. The trial court also ruled that sufficient evidence existed to deny bail under section 16-4-101(1)(a), C.R.S. (2009), which authorizes a trial court to deny bail in capital cases when proof of the crime is evident.
In an earlier proceeding, the trial court disqualified the district attorney on the basis that the funding arrangement between the Department of Corrections and the District Attorney's Office constituted special circumstances under section 20-1-107(2).
The district attorney filed an interlocutory appeal, and we held that “this sort of funding arrangement does not constitute a ‘special circumstance’ warranting disqualification” of the District Attorney's Office because Perez “made no showing as to how this [funding] arrangement interferes with his right to a fair trial, and the trial court made no such conclusion.” Perez I, 201 P.3d at 1234. Relying on the trial court's statement that it was “unwilling to conclude that the district attorney was obtaining any intentional financial gain,” we ruled that there was no violation of section 20-1-107(2) because there was no special circumstance that would render it unlikely the defendant would receive a fair trial. Id. Therefore, we reversed the trial court's disqualification order. Id.
Perez filed a second motion to disqualify the District Attorney's Office, arguing that additional details of the funding arrangement between the District Attorney's Office and the Department of Corrections constituted a “disqualifying financial interest” under section 20-1-107(2).
The trial court granted Perez's motion. It found that the District Attorney's Office received $91,648.19 from the Department of Corrections for the salaries of a paralegal and an intern, expert professional fees, and general office expenses. The trial court ruled that the District Attorney's Office violated section 20-1-302, which requires county approval before a district attorney can accept outside funding, because the District Attorney's Office did not seek approval from the boards of county commissioners comprising the Eighteenth Judicial District before accepting this financial assistance. The court noted that, pursuant to section 16-18-101, C.R.S. (2009), the Department of Corrections should have paid these funds to the counties comprising the Eighteenth Judicial District directly, rather than to the District Attorney's Office. The court held that the $91,648.19 provided the District Attorney's Office with a “distinct and verifiable financial interest.” The court ruled that this financial interest was an independent and sufficient reason to disqualify the District Attorney's Office, but did not inquire into whether the financial interest would render it unlikely that Perez would receive a fair trial. In so holding, the trial court implicitly construed section 20-1-107(2) to read that the statutory phrase “financial interest” was separate and independent from the phrase “that would render it unlikely that the defendant would receive a fair trial,” such that this financial interest constituted an independent basis to disqualify the District Attorney's Office.
The district attorney asks us to construe ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Torrez, Court of Appeals No. 10CA1349
...we first look to the statute's plain language, giving the words and phrases therein their plain and ordinary meanings. People v. Perez, 238 P.3d 665, 669 (Colo.2010). ¶ 100 The majority notes the plain meaning of “additional,” quoting a dictionary definition: “existing or coming by way of a......
-
In re People, Court of Appeals No. 16CA1446
...(Colo. 2001). We start by attributing to the words and phrases used in the statute their plain and ordinary meanings. People v. Perez , 238 P.3d 665, 669 (Colo. 2010). And we consider the words or phrases at issue in context—both in the context of the statute of which the words or phrases a......
-
People v. Berry
...¶ 13 We begin by attributing to the words and phrases used in the statute their plain and ordinary meanings. People v. Perez , 238 P.3d 665, 669 (Colo. 2010). And we consider the words or phrases at issue in context—both in the context of the statute of which the words or phrases are a part......
-
Hassler v. Account Brokers of Larimer Cnty., Inc., 09SC519.
...(Colo.2010). When construing a statute, our goal is to determine and give effect to the intent of the General Assembly. People v. Perez, 238 P.3d 665, 669 (Colo.2010). Before resorting to canons of statutory interpretation, we look to the plain and ordinary meaning of the words in a statute......