People v. Hale

Supreme Court of Colorado

People v. Hale

573 P.2d 935, 194 Colo. 503, 1978 Colo. LEXIS 744

CourtSupreme Court of Colorado

DecidedJanuary 23, 1978

DocketNo. 27846

StatusPublished

This text of 573 P.2d 935 (People v. Hale) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Colorado primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Hale, 573 P.2d 935, 194 Colo. 503, 1978 Colo. LEXIS 744 (Colo. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

MR. JUSTICE CARRIGAN

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The appellee was charged in district court with two counts of vehicular assault.¹ When the appellee failed to appear for a pre-trial hearing, defense counsel informed the court that he believed she had left the country permanently. At that time, defense counsel was permitted to withdraw from the case. The court did not, however, vacate the previously set trial date, but issued an alias warrant for the appellee’s arrest.

On the trial date, neither the appellee nor any defense counsel appeared. The court, over the district attorney’s objection, dismissed the case and the alias warrant. The People appealed. We reverse.

We are aware of no statute or rule authorizing a district court, on its own motion, to dismiss a criminal case over the district attorney’s objection under circumstances such as those here presented. See People v. Butz, 37 Colo. App. 212, 547 P.2d 262 (1975); Crim. P. 48(b). Absent express authorization, it is normally the function of the district attorney, not the trial court, to initiate, on behalf of the state, procedures for dismissing criminal cases before trial. This is true even where, as here, it appears to the trial court that further prosecution of the case will be useless and unnecessarily costly. We hold, therefore, that the trial court exceeded its authority. People v. Dennis, 164 Colo. 163, 433 P.2d 339 (1967).

The order dismissing the case is reversed and the cause is remanded to the district court with directions to reinstate the case.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MR. JUSTICE CARRIGAN

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The appellee was charged in district court with two counts of vehicular assault.¹ When the appellee failed to appear for a pre-trial hearing, defense counsel informed the court that he believed she had left the country permanently. At that time, defense counsel was permitted to withdraw from the case. The court did not, however, vacate the previously set trial date, but issued an alias warrant for the appellee’s arrest.

On the trial date, neither the appellee nor any defense counsel appeared. The court, over the district attorney’s objection, dismissed the case and the alias warrant. The People appealed. We reverse.

We are aware of no statute or rule authorizing a district court, on its own motion, to dismiss a criminal case over the district attorney’s objection under circumstances such as those here presented. See People v. Butz, 37 Colo. App. 212, 547 P.2d 262 (1975); Crim. P. 48(b). Absent express authorization, it is normally the function of the district attorney, not the trial court, to initiate, on behalf of the state, procedures for dismissing criminal cases before trial. This is true even where, as here, it appears to the trial court that further prosecution of the case will be useless and unnecessarily costly. We hold, therefore, that the trial court exceeded its authority. People v. Dennis, 164 Colo. 163, 433 P.2d 339 (1967).

The order dismissing the case is reversed and the cause is remanded to the district court with directions to reinstate the case.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

573 P.2d 935, 194 Colo. 503, 1978 Colo. LEXIS 744, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hale-colo-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack