People v. Hutchinson, 27163
| Decision Date | 13 December 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 27163,27163 |
| Citation | 192 Colo. 204,557 P.2d 376 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gaines Melvin HUTCHINSON, Jr., Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
R. Dale Tooley, Dist. Atty., Brooke Wunnicke, Chief Appellate Deputy Dist. Atty., Thomas P. Casey, Lucy Marsh Yee, Deputy Dist. Attys., Denver, for plaintiff-appellant.
Lamm, Young, DiManna, Eklund & Ciancio, Michael F. DiManna, Denver, for defendant-appellee.
This is an appeal brought by the People from a pretrial judgment granting defendant's motion to dismiss charges against him for unlawfully selling narcotics. The single issue presented for review is whether the trial court had any proper basis for a finding of prejudicial delay in arresting defendant. We reverse the judgment of the trial court because no such prejudice was demonstrated by the defendant as required.
The defendant was arrested approximately six months after he allegedly sold a narcotic drug to a special agent of the United States Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA). The transaction supposedly occurred in the presence of an informant. At the hearing on defendant's motion to dismiss, the DEA agent testified that he waited approximately three months to inform the district attorney's office of the alleged sale because his investigation of other drug transactions, which involved friends of the defendant, would have been jeopardized. He then testified that it took the district attorney's office another two months to issue an arrest warrant. Defendant was arrested a few weeks later.
Before defendant's arrest, the informer left the state. However, during the hearing on defendant's motion to dismiss, the DEA agent disclosed the name and whereabouts of the informer, and he indicated that the informer had returned to Colorado at least once to give testimony in another case.
The trial court found that defendant's due process rights were violated because the five-month delay in issuing an arrest warrant prejudiced his defense. The court found that the passage of time adversely affected defense witnesses more than prosecution witnesses who are usually law enforcement officers and 'who take good notes.' He also expressed dissatisfaction with the practice of the district attorney's office in taking an inordinate amount of time in issuing arrest warrants in this case and in other cases.
The constitutional right to a speedy trial does not include the right to a speedy arrest or indictment. United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307, 92 S.Ct. 455, 30 L.Ed.2d 468 (1971); People ex rel. Coca v. District Court, 187 Colo. 280, 530 P.2d 958 (1975). Due process and fundamental fairness, however, might require a dismissal of charges if a pre-arrest delay causes substantial and actual prejudice to appellee's right to a fair trial. United States v. Marion, supra, and People ex rel. Coca v. District Court,supra. A showing of specific prejudice is required.
We have held that a generalized assertion...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Leonard v. Hey, 14712
...State, Alaska, 605 P.2d 882 (1980) (five months); State v. Davis, Mo.App., 585 S.W.2d 60 (1979) (six months); People v. Hutchinson, 192 Colo. 204, 557 P.2d 376 (1976) (en banc) (six months); State v. Royal, 217 Kan. 197, 535 P.2d 413 (1975) (six months); State v. Torres, 116 Ariz. 377, 569 ......
-
People v. Melanson
...is so great that considerations of due process and fundamental fairness require that the charges be dismissed. People v. Hutchinson, 192 Colo. 204, 557 P.2d 376 (1976). In determining whether a delayed prosecution has resulted in a denial of due process, a court must examine certain key fac......
-
People v. Mitchell, 90CA0247
...fundamental fairness. This contention is without merit. There is no right to a speedy filing of criminal charges. People v. Hutchinson, 192 Colo. 204, 557 P.2d 376 (1976). To have charges dismissed because of a delay, a defendant must show a violation of due process, that is, that the delay......
-
People v. Hall, 84SA544
...loss of documents--becomes so great that due process and fundamental fairness require that the charges be dismissed. People v. Hutchinson, 192 Colo. 204, 557 P.2d 376 (1976). This court has recognized "certain key factors" to be examined in this inquiry, which include: (1) loss of defense w......
-
Section 25 DUE PROCESS OF LAW.
...caused by it becomes so great that due process and fundamental fairness require that the charges be dismissed. People v. Hutchinson, 192 Colo. 204, 557 P.2d 376 (1976); People v. Hall, 729 P.2d 373 (Colo. 1986). Factors to be examined in determining if delay of arrest violates due process a......