Out-of-state police departments are not exempt from the rule requiring prosecutors to hand over evidence to the defense, the Colorado Court of Appeals decided on Thursday.

A three-judge appellate panel found it violated legal procedure to disclose in the middle of a defendant’s murder trial that he implied he was the suspect in a Colorado Springs murder to an officer while being arrested in Pennsylvania. However, the error did not warrant overturning his conviction.

“My argument is based on the fact that the agents in Philadelphia did not conduct any investigation into the underlying crime. All they did was to arrest the defendant,” senior assistant attorney general Majid Yazdi told the panel during oral arguments.

“I’m concerned that your attempt to distinguish this arrest from the investigative process,” countered Chief Judge Steve Bernard, “has wide-ranging and potentially problematic implications.”

An El Paso County jury convicted Eric William Grant and an associate of murdering George Maldonado in July 2017. The two men posed as utility workers to rob Full Throttle Auto Service in Colorado Springs, but ended up killing the 50-year-old Maldonado and seriously beating a customer. Three months later, Philadelphia police and cooperating federal agencies arrested Grant.

When an officer asked Grant if he had identification, he responded: “I’m on the run from Colorado, and you think I’m going to have identification? I want as little contact with you guys as possible, and I definitely don’t want you to know who I am.”

Under Colorado’s criminal procedures, the prosecution must disclose to the defense certain materials. Those include oral statements to police, which have a deadline of 21 days following the defendant’s first court appearance after charges are filed. The obligation applies to information “in the possession or control” of the prosecutor’s office, as well as to “any others who have participated in the investigation” who report to the office.

However, the prosecution did not learn about Grant’s admission until the seventh day of his trial.

When the prosecutor raised it to the court, Grant’s attorney objected. She said Grant’s line of defense relied on mistaken identity, which the statement would undermine. Further, it constituted the type of self-incrimination that the defense would have asked the court to suppress and contradicted her opening statement to the jury that there were no further statements from her client.

District Court Judge Barbara L. Hughes decided the statement’s disclosure in the middle of the trial did violate procedural rules, but ruled it was unintentional and declined to suppress the admission. A detective from Philadelphia subsequently told the jury what Grant had said.

Grant appealed, and the attorney general’s office argued that no violation had taken place because the detective’s report containing Grant’s statement was not within the “possession or control” of the Colorado Springs Police Department or the prosecution until they brought it to the court’s attention. Further the Philadelphia police did not participate in the investigation, as the rule required.

“That means the prosecution did not have any reason to believe that there could be relevant evidence,” Yazdi told the judges. To decide otherwise would be “expanding the whole notion of an investigation into any contact between the police and the defendant.”

The government contended the law was on its side: a 1984 decision from the Court of Appeals established that the disclosure rule only applied to “police in the county or district of trial.” The appellate panel in Grant’s case disagreed.

The 1984 decision, wrote Bernard in the April 22 opinion, was based on an “older version” of the disclosure rule. Colorado’s Supreme Court has since decided the directive was not just limited to the district attorney’s office or “local law enforcement agency primarily responsible for the investigation of the case.”

Furthermore, Bernard told Yazdi during oral arguments, “This wasn’t some random contact with the Philadelphia police. [Grant] got arrested because the Colorado Springs Police Department wanted the Philadelphia police to arrest him.”

Applying that guidance, the appellate panel decided Grant’s arrest and booking in Philadelphia were part of the investigation of the case. Even if the rule requiring 21-day disclosure did not apply, another requirement existed to hand over materials to the defense at least 35 days before trial.

Finally, the district court judge had not made a mistake by allowing the statement as evidence. Even though Grant said he was “on the run” from Colorado, the jury could infer that Grant was not referring to the robbery and murder, the Court of Appeals noted.

As a consequence, Grant’s conviction and life sentence will stand.

As part of the Courts in the Community program, oral arguments took place virtually in front of Durango High School students. Afterward, the attorneys and the judges had the opportunity to answer students’ questions.

The case is People v. Grant.