Court Opinion

ID: 9795791
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 03:39:00.292612+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:37:46.506562
License: Public Domain

LEHMAN, Justice,
specially concurring, with whom KITE, Justice, joins.
[{T19] I agree with the majority's reasoning, application of established case law, and relevant rule interpretation in reaching its ultimate determination under the facts and cireumstances that exist in this matter. Nevertheless, while I am not bothered by the majority's holding which provides certainty and guidance in the future for the trial courts and litigants, I believe that this case points out the need for modification to W.R.Cr.P. 24(e) regarding the use of alternate jurors.
[¶ 20] Frankly, the present condition of our established alternate juror rule defeats the very basic reason for selecting alternate jurors, namely, to prevent having to re-try an entire case should one of the regular jurors become unable to complete their assigned duties and thus promote judicial economy. Accordingly, I would respectfully suggest that W.R.Cr.P. 24(e) be modified to allow alternate jurors to take the place of original jurors even after deliberations have commenced under those safeguards set forth in People v. Burnette, 775 P.2d 583 (Colo.1989) adopted by the majority.
[T21] Modification to W.R.Cr.P. 24(e) would not only assure that a defendant receives a fair and impartial review by a jury of his peers of those charges alleged against him in the furtherance of judicial economy, but would also promote enhanced trust and confidence by the public in our legal system.