Colorado’s second-highest court clarified for the first time earlier this month that the same criteria used to extend an adult criminal defendant’s speedy trial deadline also apply to juveniles.

The federal and state constitutions guarantee the right to a speedy trial. In Colorado, that means the government generally must bring defendants to trial within six months of a not guilty plea. Judges may grant an extension over the defendant’s objection if the prosecution’s evidence is unavailable by the trial date or the state faces unusual hurdles in preparing more serious cases.

For accused juveniles, however, the deadline is shortened to 60 days. In defending a Mesa County judge’s decision to extend a juvenile’s arson trial beyond that window, prosecutors argued the judge only needed to find “good cause” to do so, broadly speaking.

A three-judge panel for the Court of Appeals disagreed, citing the factors explicitly mentioned in Colorado law for extending the speedy trial deadline for adult cases.

“(I)t makes little sense to grant trial courts nearly unbridled discretion to grant a prosecutor’s request for a continuance in a juvenile adjudication trial, without the juvenile’s consent, when trial courts lack the same degree of discretion when considering similar requests for continuances in cases involving adult defendants,” wrote Judge Lino S. Lipinsky de Orlov in the panel’s Jan. 11 opinion.

Case: People in the Interest of C.M.W.R.

Decided: January 11, 2024

Jurisdiction: Mesa County

Ruling: 3-0

Judges: Lino S. Lipinsky de Orlov (author)

Craig R. Welling

Christina F. Gomez

Because the juvenile’s trial took place outside of the speedy trial deadline without a valid extension, the panel imposed the one consequence lawmakers have authorized under the law: dismissal of the charges and a bar on further prosecution.

Mesa County prosecutors charged the juvenile, identified as C.M.W.R., with criminal mischief, burglary and arson for the 2021 fire at a Fruita church. The speedy trial deadline was Nov. 26, 2021, with proceedings set to begin the week of Nov. 22.

The prosecutors, Kali Roundy and Diya Rattan, indicated early in November that they were “personally ready” for trial, but given the proximity to Thanksgiving, multiple witnesses were “unavailable.” C.M.W.R. objected to moving the trial beyond the deadline.

Then-District Court Judge Lance P. Timbreza granted the prosecution’s request for a postponement, reasoning the prosecution “made diligent efforts in terms of attempting to arrange witnesses,” but their unavailability provided “good cause” to move the trial.

The trial eventually took place in February 2022, more than 100 days after C.M.W.R.’s not guilty plea. Timbreza adjudicated C.M.W.R. delinquent – the equivalent of a guilty verdict.

The appellate panel concluded that lawmakers intended for juveniles to be brought to trial quicker than adult defendants, but allowing judges to extend the deadline for “good cause” – however they define it – would undermine that protection. Consequently, Timbreza needed to take account of the factors justifying an extension for adults when he decided whether to postpone C.M.W.R.’s trial.

Specifically, an extension is appropriate when the prosecution’s key evidence is unavailable on the trial date. Under the circumstances, the unavailability of witnesses around Thanksgiving could have satisfied that factor.

However, the prosecution “did not reveal the identity of the unavailable witnesses, provide a proffer of their anticipated testimony, or explain why such testimony was material to the prosecutor’s case,” Lipinsky wrote. “The court’s unquestioning acceptance of the prosecutor’s inadequate argument for a continuance” was an error.

The panel overturned C.M.W.R.’s adjudication of delinquency.

The case is People in the Interest of C.M.W.R.