The Colorado Supreme Court concluded on Monday that an El Paso County prosecutor made an unjustified decision to file a mid-case appeal, pushing the trial beyond the legal deadline and requiring that the defendant’s convictions be overturned.

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. Violating that deadline results in dismissal of the charges and a bar on further prosecution.

Khristina Phillips argued her misdemeanor convictions could not stand because the prosecution pursued a mid-case, or “interlocutory,” appeal that was baseless. Specifically, while the rules authorize interlocutory appeals when a judge “suppresses” evidence, the trial judge had only blocked the prosecution from introducing uncurated evidence he found irrelevant and overly harmful.

The Supreme Court agreed.

“The word ‘suppress’ in criminal motions practice is a specialized term denoting the exclusion from trial of any evidence procured illegally, typically in violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights or protections,” wrote Justice Carlos A. Samour Jr. in the April 6 opinion. “The county court judge did not preclude any evidence that was illegally obtained, let alone evidence allegedly collected in violation of Phillips’s constitutional rights or protections. Far from it. The judge stated, no less than five times, that he was not suppressing (it).”

Phillips stood accused of child abuse and operating a child care facility without a license. The prosecution filed two interlocutory appeals during Phillips’ proceedings. First, it challenged County Court Judge Steven Katzman’s decision to suppress part of Phillips’ videotaped interrogation with a detective. The decision was reversed and the time it took to resolve the appeal pushed back the speedy trial deadline.

Then, at the beginning of the trial, 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, Senior Deputy District Attorney Doyle Baker decided to file another interlocutory appeal in the middle of jury selection, triggering an end to the trial.

A district judge reviewed the appeal and ultimately dismissed it. By that time, Phillips’ speedy trial deadline had passed. 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 went to trial again in December 2023, and the jury convicted her. Phillips challenged her convictions, arguing once again that the prosecution’s improper second appeal violated the speedy trial deadline.

“The record demonstrates,” wrote then-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.”

But during oral arguments to the Supreme Court, the justices suggested it was unreasonable for the prosecution to pursue a second interlocutory appeal on the grounds that Katzman was suppressing evidence.

“The county court judge had so much patience trying to explain repeatedly, ‘I’m not suppressing this evidence,'” said Justice Maria E. Berkenkotter. “There were, like, teaching moments at times. And the (prosecutor) was just not getting it.”

“There wasn’t a motion to suppress. It was the prosecution’s attempt to introduce something, and they didn’t get their way,” added Justice Brian D. Boatright.

Samour, in the Supreme Court’s opinion, wrote that there was no “arguable merit” to the appeal because Katzman clearly advised the prosecution that his decision was based on the rules of evidence, not on a constitutional violation warranting suppression. A ruling for the prosecution, added Samour, would green-light many immediate appeals of routine evidentiary decisions.

“This, in turn, would all but hand prosecutors a blank check,” he wrote, “based on any unfavorable evidentiary ruling. Of course, that would be an absurd result, and we must eschew interpretations that lead to absurd results.”

Because Phillips’ speedy trial rights were violated, the Supreme Court overturned her convictions and ordered her case permanently dismissed.

The case is Phillips v. People.