Court Opinion

ID: 9628768
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 09:31:50.02609+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:13:56.896237
License: Public Domain

MR. JUSTICE GROVES
concurring in the result:
I dissented in Hunter v. District Court, 190 Colo. 48, 543 P.2d 1265 (1975), for the reason that there I did not think that the judge conducting the preliminary hearing abused his discretion. Here, I think there was an abuse of discretion and would predicate the result solely on that ground.
MR. JUSTICE CARRIGAN concurring in the result:
*467At the time Hunter v. District Court, 190 Colo. 48, 543 P.2d 1265 (1975), was decided, I was not a member of this court. Had I been here, I would have dissented. In my view, Hunter deprived trial judges of normal judicial discretion when conducting preliminary examinations in criminal cases. This frustrates the purpose of the preliminary examination, to screen out at an early stage criminal cases filed without sufficient credible evidence to support them. To require trial of such cases merely wastes the time and energy of jurors, witnesses, judges, and court personnel. As this case illustrates, there are adequate means of correcting the rare instances of abuse of discretion.
I am authorized to state that MR. JUSTICE ERICKSON joins in this opinion.