People v. Ahmed.

2026 COA 55. No. 24CA1772. Discovery and Pretrial Procedure—Crim. P. 16—Disclosure to Defense—Prosecutor’s Obligations—Failure to Comply—Sanctions.

July 2, 2026

Ahmed allegedly stabbed two individuals who then threw rocks at Ahmed to keep him away. He was charged with first degree attempted murder, second degree assault, third degree assault, second degree assault on an at-risk person, and third degree assault on an at-risk person. Ahmed claimed that he acted in self-defense. Under Crim. P. 16(I)(b)(3), the prosecutor had to disclose all required discovery to defense counsel no later than 35 days before trial. But the prosecutor provided the defense, for the first time, with recordings of five 911 calls just six days before trial. Defense counsel informed the district court that one of the calls was from an eyewitness to the rock throwing, who told the operator that Ahmed was the victim rather than the assailant. Defense counsel argued that the late disclosure hampered his ability to defend Ahmed and violated the prosecutor’s discovery obligations. Defense counsel requested dismissal of the case or, alternatively, a reduction of charges. The district court ruled that the untimely disclosure of the 911 calls violated Crim. P. 16 and Ahmed’s due process rights, adding that the late disclosure was part of a pattern of practice that had been routinely occurring in many cases. The pattern and practice statement was based on two other cases in the jurisdiction. The court dismissed the charges against Ahmed as a discovery sanction.

On appeal, the district attorney’s office challenged the court’s finding that the failure to provide timely discovery in three cases constitutes a pattern and practice, arguing that the facts do not support dismissing Ahmed’s case and asserting that the court did not allow the prosecutor a sufficient opportunity to respond to the pattern and practice allegation. The district attorney did not contest the district court’s finding that the untimely disclosure of the 911 recordings violated Rule 16 and Ahmed’s constitutional right to due process. Rule 16(I)(a)(1) requires prosecutors to make available to the defense information within the prosecutor’s possession or control about the pending case, and district courts may impose sanctions on a district attorney’s office that violates a defendant’s due process rights by not providing mandatory discovery to the defense. The choice of sanction for discovery violations is within the trial court’s discretion. Generally, a court should not issue a ruling without first giving the adversely affected party an opportunity to address it. Here, the court did not allow the prosecutor to be heard on whether the district attorney’s office engaged in a pattern and practice of discovery violations or the appropriateness of a dismissal sanction based on such a pattern and practice. Accordingly, the district court abused its discretion by dismissing the charges against Ahmed.

The judgment was reversed and the case was remanded for a new sanctions hearing and further proceedings.