The Colorado Supreme Court reinstated the Eighth Judicial District Attorney’s Office on a stalking case on Monday, finding a trial judge disqualified the office based on an incorrect perception of a conflict.

In an unusual unsigned opinion, the Supreme Court noted state law allows judges to remove district attorney offices from criminal cases under “special circumstances” that would likely prevent a fair trial. But the case of defendant Toby Joseph Chapman did not rise to that level simply because a Larimer County judge was the alleged victim and the lead prosecutor appeared in her courtroom a lot.

“More specifically, this working relationship does not rise to the level of the ‘extreme’ special circumstances needed to trigger the disqualification statute,” wrote the court in its May 12 opinion.

Chapman stands accused of 10 felony and misdemeanor charges related to stalking. He allegedly appeared at District Court Judge Sarah B. Cure’s home on multiple occasions, even after she obtained a restraining order. The judges of the Eighth Judicial District recused themselves from handling the criminal case.

In February, the defense moved to disqualify the DA’s office and appoint a special prosecutor. Chapman’s attorney argued prosecutor Brian Hardouin was scheduled to appear “approximately 36 times” in Cure’s courtroom over the next six months and his physical office was “in close proximity” to her chambers. As such, the district attorney’s office had a “personal conflict” with the case.

Hardouin responded in opposition to the motion, arguing the defense was only interested in disqualifying his office after plea negotiations broke down.

Regina Walter, a retired El Paso County judge assigned to the case, initially found no need to remove the entire DA’s office. However, two days later, she changed her mind.

“The Court finds that best practice dictates, and the law requires, an appointment of a special prosecutor when a judge is an alleged victim and the prosecutor, its superior and its underlings appear in front of the judge,” Walter wrote. “The Court finds that special circumstances exist which render it unlikely that the Defendant will receive a fair trial if the case is prosecuted by the office that is responsible for the prosecution of all cases in Larimer County Combined Courts.”

She added that every member of the DA’s office was “compromised.”

The prosecution appealed directly to the Supreme Court, arguing there was no concrete reason why the entire office should be disqualified.

“Mr. Chapman’s argument is essentially that Mr. Hardouin and others in the District Attorney’s Office performing their work duties is an extreme circumstance justifying disqualification,” wrote Deputy District Attorney Meghan King. “Mr. Chapman has offered no actual evidence that the members of the office are compromised due to their working relationship with Judge Cure.”

The Supreme Court agreed.

“The district court based its decision on the routine performance of duties by Hardouin and the District Attorney’s Office before the victim’s court. The fact that Hardouin and other prosecutors in the District Attorney’s Office appear in front of the judge who is the alleged victim does not constitute special circumstances of the type contemplated” by the law, the court wrote.

The justices also noted the proximity of Hardouin’s office to Cure’s chambers was not a reason to bring in a different prosecutor, nor was the fact that some DA employees may be called as witnesses.

The case is People v. Chapman.