Because Adams County prosecutors disclosed key evidence in a criminal case only four days before trial – and 11 months after the evidence first became available – a judge acted within his authority by dismissing one of the charges against the defendant, the Court of Appeals ruled on Thursday.

James Andrew Petrie stands accused of three drug-related felonies, two felony charges for the illegal possession of firearms, and one “special offender” count. The latter charge would increase Petrie’s sentence if the government proved Petrie committed a drug felony while possessing a weapon that posed “a risk to others.”

In 2020, authorities searched Petrie’s home in Westminster and found several illicit drugs and two guns, which Petrie was prohibited from owning. In January 2022, law enforcement performed testing on both weapons – a disassembled shotgun and an intact shotgun. A report elaborated that the intact shotgun’s trigger did not work properly and there was no conclusive match to Petrie’s fingerprints or DNA on the gun.

For reasons that were unclear on appeal, the prosecution allegedly did not learn of the report until December. The district attorney’s office alerted the defense four days before Petrie was to stand trial.

The defense immediately moved to dismiss the gun-related charges against Petrie, including the special offender count. The intact shotgun was the only weapon that could pose “a risk to others,” but the report revealed the gun was actually barely operable.

“The first trial setting was in February of 2022. Why the information was not available then is unclear, and certainly unacceptable,” wrote public defender Kayleigh TenBarge. “Defense Counsel is extremely concerned that there is further exculpatory evidence that has yet to be disclosed.”

District Court Judge Patrick H. Pugh agreed to sanction the government for its failure to disclose the report for the 11 months it existed. Because the government was quickly facing its deadline for bringing Petrie to trial, the late revelations prevented the defense from consulting with an expert or evaluating the findings in-depth.

Pugh dismissed the special offender charge against Petrie. Even if he were simply to exclude the report from trial, the judge wrote, “the prosecution would have difficulty proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the weapon posed a risk to others.”

The district attorney’s office quickly appealed. While conceding it violated the disclosure rules, the prosecution argued dismissal was too harsh a reaction. Petrie countered that even if prosecutors did not personally know about the report until December, the assigned detectives did, and the prosecution’s disclosure obligations extend to those who participate in investigations.

A three-judge panel for the Court of Appeals acknowledged it was a “close call,” and a less-severe sanction could have been acceptable. However, the panel deferred to Pugh’s conclusion that the prosecution’s misconduct harmed Petrie in a manner that compromised his right to a fair trial.

“Simply put, we are not in a position to second-guess the trial court’s conclusion that if the information contained in the reports had been made available sooner, Petrie could have developed a different and possibly more effective defense to the special offender charge,” wrote Judge Matthew D. Grove in the panel’s June 1 opinion.

The case is People v. Petrie.