The Colorado Supreme Court seemed skeptical on Tuesday that Denver prosecutors should be barred from appealing a trial judge’s permanent dismissal of a criminal case, based upon the sequence of events after the original ruling.

Prosecutors charged Quinn M. Jebe with offenses relating to drug distribution and sexual assault on a child. In July 2023, shortly before trial, the district attorney’s office announced the alleged victim was unable to testify. It asked for the case to be dismissed without prejudice, meaning prosecutors could later refile the charges.

Instead, District Court Judge Nikea T. Bland dismissed the case with prejudice, precluding the refiling of charges. The prosecution immediately asked for reconsideration and, 39 days later, Bland denied the motion. Twenty-three days after that, the prosecution moved to appeal the dismissal.

The Court of Appeals was then confronted with the question of whether it could even hear the district attorney’s appeal. Did the prosecution have to abide by the 49-day appeal deadline, starting from the date of the original dismissal order? Or did the motion for reconsideration push back the deadline?

“We first conclude that a prosecutorial motion for reconsideration of a final judgment does not extend the time for filing an appeal,” wrote Judge Neeti V. Pawar in the three-judge appellate panel’s opinion.

She elaborated that exceptions to the 49-day deadline apply to defendants, but the same caveats do not apply when the prosecution is appealing. Finally, the panel believed the prosecution’s “misinterpretation of the law” was not grounds to waive the deadline.

Turning to the Supreme Court, the district attorney’s office argued that the Court of Appeals’ “unnecessarily rigid” interpretation of the rules could undermine trial judges’ ability to correct their mistakes, possibly eliminating the need for an appeal in the first place.

Adrienne Teodorovic, representing Jebe, argued that the prosecution did, in fact, have 10 days from the existing deadline to file an appeal after Bland issued her order on reconsideration.

“The argument that Mr. Jebe is making is not that we can’t have a motion to reconsider,” said Teodorovic. “What I don’t hear an answer to from the prosecution, though, is: Why do we need to extend the timeframe within which to file an appeal?”

“Part of what doesn’t make sense to me is under the way you’re interpreting the law, the prosecution would have to file a notice of appeal with respect to the first ruling,” said Justice Maria E. Berkenkotter, “and then I think under your theory, they’d also have to file a notice of appeal with respect to the second.”

Teodorovic explained that the prosecution would only appeal the original order to put everyone on notice of the challenge. Then, it could seek a “limited remand” from the Court of Appeals, allowing the trial judge to proceed promptly with reconsideration.

“You involve the Court of Appeals. They can dictate that the district court get the job done,” she said, “so we can move on with this appeal.”

Justice William W. Hood III proposed a potential resolution that would allow the Denver District Attorney’s Office to prevail in Jebe’s case on one of the grounds the Court of Appeals rejected: That the prosecution’s failure to appeal in time was “excusable neglect” that should not be held against it.

“It seems to me, stepping back from all the nuances that we’ve been talking about, that maybe the appropriate outcome is just to say excusable neglect in this instance because there are reasonable arguments on both sides,” he said. “And then give it to the rule-making committee to sort out.”

Senior Deputy District Attorney Alison Suthers argued that the court should provide some guidance in its opinion. She also asked the justices to reiterate “the simple and elegant rule” that “the time to appeal begins when the motion to reconsider is denied.”

The case is People v. Jebe.