De'Sha v. Reed, No. 27767

Docket NºNo. 27767
Citation194 Colo. 367, 572 P.2d 821
Case DateDecember 19, 1977
CourtSupreme Court of Colorado

Page 821

572 P.2d 821
194 Colo. 367
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.
No. 27767.
Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc.
Dec. 19, 1977.

[194 Colo. 368] 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.

Page 822

[194 Colo. 369] PRINGLE, Chief Justice.

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."

I

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:

"Section 23. Trial by jury grand jury. The right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate in criminal cases; but a jury in civil cases in all courts, or in criminal cases in courts not of record, may consist of less than twelve persons, as may be prescribed by law. Hereafter a grand jury shall consist of twelve persons, any nine of whom concurring may find an indictment; provided, the general assembly may change, regulate or abolish the grand jury system ; and provided, further, the right of any person to serve on any jury shall not be denied or abridged on account of sex, and the general assembly may provide by law for the exemption from jury service of persons or classes of persons." (emphasis supplied)

Colorado Constitution, Article VI:

"Section 21. Rule-making power. The supreme court shall make and promulgate rules governing the administration of all courts and shall make and promulgate rules governing practice and procedure in civil and criminal cases, except that the general assembly shall have the power to provide simplified procedures in county courts for claims not exceeding five [194 Colo. 370]...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 practice notes
  • Clouse ex rel. Clouse v. State, No. CV-99-0023-PR.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arizona
    • February 1, 2001
    ...both general and specific constitutional provisions relating to the same subject, the specific provision will control." de'Sha v. Reed, 194 Colo. 367, 572 P.2d 821, 823 (1977). The language of the anti-abrogation clause applies generally to "the right of action to recover damages for injuri......
  • Clouse v. State, Dept. of Public Safety, No. CV-99-0023-PR.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arizona
    • October 17, 2000
    ...both general and specific constitutional provisions relating to the same subject, the specific provision will control." de'Sha v. Reed, 194 Colo. 367, 572 P.2d 821, 823 (1977). The language of the anti-abrogation clause applies generally to "the right of action to recover damages for injuri......
  • Colorado Common Cause v. Bledsoe, No. 89SC465
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court of Colorado
    • April 15, 1991
    ...218, 233, 40 P. 882, 887 (1895). Moreover, specific constitutional provisions control over general provisions. 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, 521, 238 P. 44, 46 Article V, section 16, of the Colorado Cons......
  • City of Durango v. Durango Transp., Inc., No. 89SC487
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court of Colorado
    • March 25, 1991
    ...both general and specific constitutional provisions relating to the same subject, the specific provision will control." de'Sha v. Reed, 194 Colo. 367, 370, 572 P.2d 821, 823 (1977); accord People ex rel. Boatright v. Newlon, 77 Colo. 516, 521, 238 P. 44, 46 (1925); People v. Field, 66 Colo.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
17 cases
  • Clouse ex rel. Clouse v. State, No. CV-99-0023-PR.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arizona
    • February 1, 2001
    ...both general and specific constitutional provisions relating to the same subject, the specific provision will control." de'Sha v. Reed, 194 Colo. 367, 572 P.2d 821, 823 (1977). The language of the anti-abrogation clause applies generally to "the right of action to recover damages for injuri......
  • Clouse v. State, Dept. of Public Safety, No. CV-99-0023-PR.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arizona
    • October 17, 2000
    ...both general and specific constitutional provisions relating to the same subject, the specific provision will control." de'Sha v. Reed, 194 Colo. 367, 572 P.2d 821, 823 (1977). The language of the anti-abrogation clause applies generally to "the right of action to recover damages for injuri......
  • Colorado Common Cause v. Bledsoe, No. 89SC465
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court of Colorado
    • April 15, 1991
    ...218, 233, 40 P. 882, 887 (1895). Moreover, specific constitutional provisions control over general provisions. 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, 521, 238 P. 44, 46 Article V, section 16, of the Colorado Cons......
  • City of Durango v. Durango Transp., Inc., No. 89SC487
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court of Colorado
    • March 25, 1991
    ...both general and specific constitutional provisions relating to the same subject, the specific provision will control." de'Sha v. Reed, 194 Colo. 367, 370, 572 P.2d 821, 823 (1977); accord People ex rel. Boatright v. Newlon, 77 Colo. 516, 521, 238 P. 44, 46 (1925); People v. Field, 66 Colo.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT