Court Opinion

ID: 9625628
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 07:46:12.135465+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:56:56.902175
License: Public Domain

MR. JUSTICE GROVES
concurring in thp majority of the opinion:
Without indicating that I express the thought of the author of People v. Musgrave, 187 Colo. 135, 529 P.2d 313 (1974), it may be interpreted as holding that the identity of an eye-ear witness must be disclosed irrespective of any showing beyond that of the informant. Such an interpretation makes a per se rule. Here, I think there must be a further showing before disclosure must be ordered. I do not follow such a possible .interpretation of Musgrave, and concur in the majority opinion.