Solano v. Newman.
2024 COA 93. No. 23CA1406. Crim. P. 16—Discovery and Procedure Before Trial—Prosecutor’s Performance of Obligations—Flow of Information Between Investigative Personnel—Declaratory and Injunctive Relief.
August 15, 2024
Huerfano County Sheriff Newman and his office, the Huerfano County Sheriff’s Office (HCS Office), obtain, possess, maintain, and exercise control over the evidence involved in criminal investigations for conduct occurring in Huerfano County. Between 2019 and 2021, Sheriff Newman and the HCS Office untimely provided Crim. P. 16 discovery information to Third Judicial District, District Attorney Solano’s (DA Solano) office in approximately 37% of the criminal cases the HSC Office processed from Huerfano County. This caused DA Solano to seek continuances in many cases, of which at least 35 prosecutions were dismissed for improper handling of discovery evidence. Solano brought an action for declaratory judgment and injunctive action against Sheriff Newman and the HCS Office. Following a hearing, the district court issued a preliminary injunction, after which Sheriff Newman and the HCS Office continued to provide late discovery information in approximately 30% of their cases. DA Solano then sought a contempt citation, and the district court found Sheriff Newman and the HCS Office in contempt of court and imposed remedial actions. The court subsequently entered permanent injunctive and declaratory relief requiring Sheriff Newman and the HCS Office to comply with DA Solano’s Rule 16 discovery requests.
On appeal, Sheriff Newman and the HCS Office argued that the district court erred by declaring that Sheriff Newman and the HCS Office are subject to the Rule 16 requirements. Rule 16(I)(b)(4) provides that a prosecutor must ensure a flow of information among various investigative personnel and the prosecutor’s office sufficient for all material and information relevant to the accused and the offense charged to be within the prosecutor’s possession or control. The prosecutor’s Rule 16 duties extend to individuals “who have participated in the investigation or evaluation of the case.” It is undisputed that Sheriff Newman and the HCS Office engage in investigative duties and responsibilities, and that the office is a government agency that exists, in part, to assist the prosecuting attorney. Here, the record supports the conclusion that Sheriff Newman and the HCS Office repeatedly ignored DA Solano’s requests for Rule 16 compliant materials, which resulted in courts dismissing numerous criminal cases because the prosecuting attorney was unable to meet his Rule 16 deadlines. Therefore, it was appropriate for the prosecutor to obtain declaratory and injunctive relief to ensure that he was timely provided Rule 16 compliant information.
Sheriff Newman and the HCS Office also argued that declaratory and injunctive relief are not express remedies contemplated under Rule 16, so the district court erred by ordering such relief. However, nothing prevents a prosecutor from seeking injunctive relief to comply with their mandatory duty to ensure that the flow of information between law enforcement and the prosecutor’s office is timely and complete so disclosure to the defense can be accomplished. And the declaratory judgment and permanent injunction do nothing in addition to the Rule 16 requirements. Further, the permanent injunction is narrowly tailored to ensure the flow of Rule 16 compliant information from Sheriff Newman and the HCS Office to DA Solano’s office so that DA Solano may discharge his mandatory Rule 16 duties.
The judgment was affirmed.