Opinion ID: 2621259
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: Initially, we note that this case is an improper C.A.R. 4.1 interlocutory appeal. Our analysis in People v. Braunthal, 31 P.3d 167, 171-72 (Colo.2001), provides explicit guidance regarding supreme court jurisdiction over interlocutory appeals. [3] In Braunthal, we made clear that interlocutory jurisdiction is proper only when the ruling in question is made pursuant to Crim. P. 41(e) and (g) and Crim. P. 41.1(i), namely where evidence arises from an unlawful search and seizure, an involuntary confession or admission, or an improper non-testimonial identification. Id. at 171. [4] C.A.R. 4.1 jurisdiction was not proper in Braunthal because the suppression of evidence arose from a ruling granting a motion for sanctions regarding the destruction of evidence, not from a Crim. P. 41(e),(g), or Crim. P. 41.1(i) motion. Id. at 172. Likewise, this appeal arises from Casias's Motion for Sanctions: Destruction of Evidence. The People attempt to argue that this appeal falls under Crim. P. 41(g) governing the suppression of involuntary confessions and admissions, but it is clear that this appeal does not arise from a motion to suppress. Casias never contended that his statements in the recordings were either involuntary or that they were made in violation of his Miranda rights. Our narrow reading of C.A.R. 4.1 is consistent with the longstanding principle that C.A.R. 4.1 may not be used to `piggyback' issues not embraced by that rule to obtain review of pre-trial evidentiary decisions. People v. Lindsey, 660 P.2d 502 (Colo.1983) (citing People v. Morrison, 196 Colo. 319, 583 P.2d 924 (Colo.1978)); People v. McNulty, 173 Colo. 491, 493, 480 P.2d 560, 561 (1971) (dismissing an interlocutory appeal of suppressed testimony given by police officers who witnessed the crime, because Crim. P. 41 does not encompass motions for suppression of testimonial evidence). Therefore, C.A.R. 4.1 interlocutory jurisdiction is improper here. Despite our lack of jurisdiction under C.A.R. 4.1, we may still reach the merits of this appeal by exercising original jurisdiction under C.A.R. 21. [5] Exercise of our original jurisdiction is appropriate where the ruling in question may have a significant impact on a party's ability to litigate the merits of a controversy or where an appellate remedy would not be adequate. See Braunthal, 31 P.3d at 172 (citing Jones v. Dist. Ct., 780 P.2d 526, 528 (Colo.1989); People v. Dist. Ct., 790 P.2d 332, 334-35 (Colo.1990)). In this case, the trial court's suppression of Casias's statements, both in the faulty recordings and, more importantly, through the detectives' testimony, will significantly impede the prosecution's case. Furthermore, an appellate remedy would be inadequate because this case raises double jeopardy concernsif the trial proceeds with wrongly suppressed evidence and Casias is acquitted, Casias may not be retried. See People v. Dist. Ct., 793 P.2d 163, 166 (Colo. 1990) (citing People v. Dist. Ct., 664 P.2d 247, 251 (Colo.1983).) Therefore, we find it proper to exercise our discretion under C.A.R. 21 to reach the merits of this appeal.