De'Sha v. Reed, 27767
Citation | 194 Colo. 367,572 P.2d 821 |
Decision Date | 19 December 1977 |
Docket Number | No. 27767,27767 |
Parties | Paul B. De'SHA, Foreman, 1977 Statutory Denver County Grand Jury on his own behalf as said Foreman and on behalf of the 1977 Statutory Denver County Grand Jury, Petitioner, v. Harold D. REED, District Judge and Presiding Judge, 1977 Statutory DenverCounty Grand Jury, and District Court, Second Judicial District, State ofColorado, Respondents. |
Court | Supreme Court of Colorado |
Dale Tooley, Dist. Atty., O. Otto Moore, Asst. Dist. Atty., Brooke Wunnicke, Deputy Dist. Atty., Denver, for petitioner.
Harold D. Reed, pro se.
J. D. MacFarlane, Atty. Gen., David W. Robbins, Deputy Atty. Gen., Edward G. Donovan, Sol. Gen., J. Stephen Phillips, Chief, Appellate Section, Karen Hoffman Seymour, Asst. Attys. Gen., Denver, for intervenor State of Colorado.
Holland & Hart, Edwin S. Kahn, Denver, for intervenor Committee on Legal Services.
The petitioner, Paul B. De'Sha, Foreman of the 1977 Statutory Denver County Grand Jury, filed a petition for a writ of mandamus against the District Court in and for the Second Judicial District and the Honorable Harold D. Reed, District Judge, to direct the judge to disclose the grand jury's report. We issued a rule to show cause and now discharge the rule.
In July of 1977, the grand jury issued a report. On July 14, 1977, Dale Tooley, District Attorney in and for the Second Judicial District and legal advisor to the grand jury, filed in the respondent district court a motion for release of this report. Among other findings, the district court found that "(i)n the absence of the recent legislation this report would be proper for release and would be ordered released by this Court, as it is in accord with Rule 6.7, C.R.Crim.P." The trial court then entered the following order:
"The Grand Jury Report may not be made public due to the provisions of Senate Bill No. 186, now enacted as law C.R.S.1973, as amended, 16-5-205(4), and further orders that such report be permanently sealed."
To provide a framework for the disposition of this case, it is necessary to set forth the following provisions of law which are at issue here:
Colorado Constitution, Article II:
(emphasis supplied)
Colorado Constitution, Article VI:
Section 16-5-205, C.R.S.1973, Senate Bill 186, 1977 First Regular Session:
Petitioner avers that the grand jury is entitled as a matter of law to have the report made public pursuant to Crim.P. 6.7, which governs the report's issuance and which is a lawful exercise of the court's rule-making power as set forth in Article VI, Section 21 of the Colorado Constitution. Petitioner's position is based on the assertion that, to the extent of any conflict, the power delegated to the court by Article VI, Section 21, Colorado Constitution, prevails over the power delegated to the legislature by Article II, Section 23, Colorado Constitution, because of the later effective date of the judicial article.
It is an established axiom of the constitutional...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Clouse ex rel. Clouse v. State
... ... Reed, 194 Colo. 367, 572 P.2d 821, 823 (1977) ... The language of the anti-abrogation clause applies ... ...
-
Clouse v. State, Dept. of Public Safety
... ... Reed, 194 Colo. 367, 572 P.2d 821, 823 (1977) ... The language of the anti-abrogation clause applies ... ...
-
Colorado Common Cause v. Bledsoe
... ... E.g., de'Sha v. Reed, 194 Colo. 367, 370, 572 P.2d 821, 823 (1977); People ex rel. Boatright v. Newlon, 77 Colo. 516, ... ...
-
City of Durango v. Durango Transp., Inc.
... ... Reed, 194 Colo. 367, 370, 572 P.2d 821, 823 (1977); accord People ex rel. Boatright v. Newlon, 77 Colo ... ...