Court Opinion

ID: 5155955
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-02 02:19:35.516483+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:54:18.786784
License: Public Domain

[1] The People have brought this interlocutory appeal under C.A.R. 4.1 seeking a review of a ruling by the trial court which suppressed a statement made by the defendant. The defendant is charged with driving in *Page 333 
violation of the habitual offender statute,1 unlawful resistance of arrest,2 and driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor.3
We dismiss the appeal.
[2] Effective April 1, 1979, C.A.R. 4.1(a) requires that, where the state files an interlocutory appeal in the supreme court from a ruling of a district court granting a motion to suppress an extra-judicial statement by a defendant, the state must certify to the supreme court that the appeal is not taken "for purposes of delay and the evidence is a substantial part of the proof of the charge pending against the defendant."
[3] Our independent review of the record provided on appeal convinces us that the defendant's statement, which was suppressed under Crim. P. 41(g), does not form a "substantial part" of the proof which may be offered against the defendant. For this reason we refuse to address the substantive issues raised by the People here.
[4] We dismiss the appeal and remand for further proceedings.
1 Section 42-2-206(1), C.R.S. 1973.
2 Section 18-8-103(1)(a), C.R.S. 1973.
3 Section 42-4-1202(1)(a), C.R.S. 1973. *Page 948