Opinion ID: 3131403
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: Â¶10Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â As a preliminary matter, we conclude that we have jurisdiction over this appeal. Â¶11Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â C.A.R. 4.1(a) provides, in pertinent part, âThe state may file an interlocutory appeal in the Supreme Court from a ruling of a district court granting a motion under Crim. P. 41(e) and (g) . . . made in advance of trial by the defendant . . . to suppress evidence or granting a motion to suppress an extra-judicial confession or admission.â Accord Â§ 16-12-102(2), C.R.S. (2015); see also People v. Smith, 254 P.3d 1158, 1160 (Colo. 2011) (noting that C.A.R. 4.1(a) vests this court with jurisdiction to hear interlocutory appeals of, among other things, the suppression of an involuntary confession or admission pursuant to Crim. P. 41(g)). Â¶12Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Crim. P. 41(g), in turn, provides, in pertinent part, âA defendant aggrieved by an alleged involuntary confession or admission made by him, may make a motion under this Rule to suppress said confession or admission.â This rule, however, is limited to motions to suppress evidence based on constitutional, but not statutory, violations. People v. Cowart, 244 P.3d 1199, 1207 (Colo. 2010) (noting that each of the grounds enumerated in Crim. P. 41(g) is premised on constitutional rights). Â¶13Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Here, although Quintero-Amadorâs motion to suppress did not cite Crim. P. 41(g), in substance it was a Crim. P. 41(g) motion because it sought to suppress admissions that Quintero-Amador had made at his previous trial and the motion was based on alleged violations of his constitutional rights. Accordingly, we have jurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal. See id. (concluding that this court had jurisdiction over a C.A.R. 4.1(a) interlocutory appeal when the trial courtâs prohibitionÂ of certain testimony could only have been viewed as an order, pursuant to Crim. P. 41(g), suppressing evidence for violations of the defendantâs Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights). Â¶14Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â We are not persuaded otherwise by Quintero-Amadorâs argument that because his prior testimony occurred in court, it was not an âextra-judicialâ confession or admission. Rather, we agree with the People that under C.A.R. 4.1(a), a confession or admission is âextra-judicialâ when it is made outside of the trial at which it is offered. See People v. Vigil, 127 P.3d 916, 921 (Colo. 2006) (referring to âextrajudicial statements contained in formalized testimonial materials, such as affidavits, depositions, prior testimony or confessionsâ); People v. Allen, 973 P.2d 620, 622 (Colo. 1999) (â[P]rocedural due process rights include a defendantâs right to testify in some extrajudicial proceedings like probation and parole revocation.â).