By David Forster
LAW WEEK COLORADO
The Colorado Supreme Court on Monday gave broad scope to the rule that protects prosecutors’ opinions about cases from disclosure.
The decision stems from an El Paso County case in which a criminal defendant sought disclosure of the prosecutor’s work in a different but related case.
Last September, Brittany Angel was in a car with three other people as sheriff’s deputies attempted to serve an arrest warrant on one of the passengers.
The driver tried to drive away and allegedly ran over a deputy’s foot. The deputy shot him and Angel then allegedly pushed the wounded driver out of his seat and drove the car away. The car was found hours later outside an emergency room with the driver’s dead body inside. An arrest warrant was issued for Angel and she eventually turned herself in.
Angel, who faces a host of charges from the incident, asked for the prosecutor’s investigation and findings regarding the shooting by the deputy. The prosecutor refused, but the trial court ordered that the information be disclosed.
The trial court said that the prosecutor’s exemption from disclosing work product under Colorado’s Code of Criminal Procedure applies only to work related to the case at hand — here the prosecution of Angel.
In his ruling overturning the trial court, Chief Justice Michael Bender first noted that it is well established that the work product exemption applies only to prosecutors’ opinions and impressions about a case, and not to factual matters, which must be disclosed to a defendant.
But whether the exemption applies only to work product prepared for the case at hand or to all cases remained an open question. In other words, can a defendant in one case force a prosecutor to turn over opinion work product prepared in another case.
Bender said the answer is no.
“We hold that the protection of prosecutorial work product, under Crim. P. 16(I)(e)(1), extends to opinion work product prepared by the prosecution in anticipation of any criminal prosecution,” Bender wrote.
“If we were to hold that Crim. P. 16(I)(e)(1) applies only to protect opinion work product created in anticipation of the case before the court, then a prosecutor, when investigating a criminal episode in the future, would have a substantial incentive to refrain from candidly and thoroughly evaluating a case for fear that her mental impressions, legal analysis, and trial strategies would be discoverable by defendants in future cases.”
