The Colorado Supreme Court recently announced it will determine whether a convicted defendant should receive a new trial after detectives interrogated him without probable cause and while executing a narrow order to obtain his DNA.

At least three of the court’s seven members must agree to take up a case on appeal.

The justices also will review whether a defendant was brought to trial outside of the speedy trial deadline when the district attorney’s office appealed an evidence-related decision and forced a delay in the proceedings.

Finally, the Supreme Court narrowly turned down a third case about Colorado’s “rape shield” law.

The interrogation

Under Colorado’s criminal rules, law enforcement may obtain an order for “nontestimonial identification,” authorizing them to pursue a person’s fingerprint, blood specimen, handwriting sample, picture or other evidence that does not stem from an interrogation.

Notably, police only need to demonstrate “reasonable grounds,” not probable cause, that their target committed an offense.

Upon securing a nontestimonial identification order to collect the DNA of Angel Adrian Castro-Velasquez, who was suspected of an attempted sexual assault, Detectives Kevin Marples and Kara Wills arrived at Castro’s house after notifying him by phone of their intent. Marples later testified he lacked probable cause to arrest Castro for the attempted attack at the time.

Instead of moving to collect the evidence authorized by the order, the detectives interrogated Castro at length. He eventually confessed, after which they executed the order.

On appeal, Castro argued the detectives manipulated the order to detain and interrogate him without probable cause. Such conduct allegedly violated the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable seizures.

A three-judge Court of Appeals panel concluded Castro was seized during the encounter, meaning he would not have felt able to leave or disregard the detectives’ questioning. Although police were not prohibited from investigating Castro further, wrote then-Judge Anthony J. Navarro, they could not interrogate him under the narrow authorization of the nontestimonial identification order.

“Overall, the record reveals that the detectives intentionally elicited Castro’s statements about the alleged offenses while he was detained on less than probable cause,” Navarro wrote. “We cannot condone it.”

The panel ordered a new trial, with Castro’s statements excluded. The Colorado Attorney General’s Office turned to the Supreme Court, asking it to review whether the “free to leave” standard was the correct way to analyze whether the detectives violated Castro’s rights. The Boulder County District Attorney’s Office wrote separately in support, arguing Castro had a “consensual interaction” with the detectives at his home.

The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.

The case is People v. Castro-Velasquez.

Speedy trial

The Supreme Court originally took an interest in Khristina Phillips’ ongoing misdemeanor prosecution in 2023, before ultimately declining to get involved.

Phillips stood accused in El Paso County of child abuse and operating a child care facility without a license. In Colorado, the government generally must bring criminal defendants to trial within six months of a not-guilty plea as part of the constitutional right to a speedy trial.

The prosecution filed two mid-case — or “interlocutory” — appeals during Phillips’ proceedings. First, it challenged the trial judge’s decision to suppress part of Phillips’ videotaped interrogation with a detective, given that Phillips had not received a Miranda warning. The decision was reversed and the time it took to resolve the appeal was excluded from the speedy trial deadline.

Then, at the beginning of trial, County Court Judge Steven Katzman balked at the prosecution’s intent to play the entirety of Phillips’ video interrogation. He ordered that only certain relevant clips be played. Under the belief that Katzman was again suppressing the interrogation, the prosecution filed another interlocutory appeal in the middle of jury selection, triggering an end to the trial.

A district court judge, hearing the appeal, ultimately dismissed it. By that time, Phillips’ speedy trial deadline had passed.

The legislature has imposed one consequence for speedy trial violations: dismissal of the charges and a prohibition on further prosecution. However, because Katzman concluded the second appeal was in “good faith,” the time it took to resolve the issue would be excluded — as it was with the first appeal — and the government would essentially receive an extension.

Phillips turned directly to the Supreme Court, arguing the prosecution simply wanted time to prepare its video clips for trial, and that was not a sufficient reason to stop the speedy trial clock from running. The Supreme Court initially signaled it would get involved, before eventually backing out of the case without explanation. 

Phillips went to trial again in December 2023 and jurors convicted her. Phillips challenged her convictions, arguing once again that the prosecution’s improper second appeal resulted in a violation of the speedy trial deadline.

“The record demonstrates,” wrote District Court Judge David A. Gilbert in upholding the convictions, that the prosecution was “operating in good faith in deciding to file an interlocutory appeal on the belief that they had a strong claim that the Court acted without authority in excluding the evidence.”

Finally, Phillips asked the Supreme Court to answer the question it previously declined to. She contended the prosecution’s interlocutory appeal served only to give the prosecution time to prepare its video clips at the expense of her speedy trial rights.

“There is no basis in the law that authorizes the prosecution to initiate an interlocutory appeal to review a trial court order that limits the prosecution’s ability to present evidence,” wrote attorney Erin Wigglesworth. “If this were the case, there would be authority for the prosecution to file an interlocutory appeal on every county court pre-trial evidentiary ruling.”

The Supreme Court agreed to examine the issue.

The case is Phillips v. People.

Allegations of false reporting

Colorado’s rape shield law generally prohibits unwarranted explorations of a victim’s sexual history. However, if there is evidence an alleged victim has “at least one incident of false reporting of unlawful sexual behavior,” there is a procedure for admitting that evidence at trial. The defense must show the evidence is relevant, and not misleading or an unfair invasion of privacy. Then the trial judge decides whether to allow it.

Jefferson County prosecutors charged Reynold Ramcharan with sexually assaulting a teenage runaway. Before trial, Ramcharan’s attorney submitted an affidavit outlining other alleged instances in which the victim falsely reported being assaulted. The information came from the victim’s legal representative and a social worker — although it was unclear how they came to know about the alleged falsehoods.

After a trial judge declined to consider the evidence because it was presented as hearsay, jurors convicted Ramcharan. On appeal, a three-judge panel agreed that the defense’s affidavit was faulty because it did not include “admissible evidence.”

“The ‘affidavit’ that Ramcharan’s counsel tendered to the court does not state that the specified individuals have firsthand knowledge of the allegations,” wrote Judge Lino S. Lipinsky de Orlov. The rape shield law “requires more than mere allegations that the victim has a history of false reporting of sexual assaults.”

To the Supreme Court, Ramcharan argued the Court of Appeals had added a new condition — admissibility — that does not exist in the rape shield law. In fact, the law mentions admissibility only after the trial judge holds a hearing to consider the evidence.

“Since the rape shield statute lacks any language requiring this,” wrote attorney Casey J. Mulligan, “this case presents this Court with an opportunity to clarify for lower courts and counsel what is required to obtain a hearing under the statute.”

The Supreme Court narrowly rejected Ramcharan’s appeal. Justices William W. Hood III and Carlos A. Samour Jr. indicated they would have heard the case.

The case is Ramcharan v. People.