In re People v. Castorena.

2026 CO 2. No. 25SA179. Discovery—Required Disclosures—Other Governmental Personnel—Service of Process.

January 12, 2026

In this original proceeding under C.A.R. 21, the supreme court held that although Crim. P. 16(I)(c)(2) authorizes a trial court to issue “suitable subpoenas or orders” on a nonparty in a criminal case, the court must obtain personal jurisdiction over the nonparty through proper service of process, either under Crim. P. 17 or CRCP 4. Once a nonparty is properly served, regardless of whether the court issued a subpoena or an order, the nonparty may challenge the disclosures ordered, and the court should conduct the analysis required by People v. Spykstra, 234 P.3d 662 (Colo. 2010), to ensure the defendant isn’t using the court’s Crim. P. 16 authority to engage in a fishing expedition for potential evidence.

Because Castorena failed to properly serve the nonparty at issue here, the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction over the nonparty. Therefore, the trial court’s order was void. The court made absolute the order to show cause, vacated the trial court’s order, and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings.