Court Opinion

ID: 9551080
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:47:32.056752+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:23:02.735169
License: Public Domain

NEIGHBORS, Justice,
specially concurring:
I concur in the judgment of the court. However, I write separately to express my concern that the court’s opinion may create more problems than it solves. As I read the majority opinion, the court rejects both the reasoning and the holding of Government of the Virgin Islands v. Smith, 615 F.2d 964 (3d Cir.1980). However, the court implies that, under some circumstances, due process and fundamental fairness may require that a court fashion appropriate remedies, including dismissal of charges, to protect a defendant’s constitutional rights. *1359If dismissal is an appropriate remedy, I fail to see why the lesser available alternative of judicial immunity should not also be available to a trial judge in certain unique circumstances.
In my view, we need not reach the validity of Smith in this case. The majority concedes that at least two prongs of the Smith test are not met: The proffered testimony did not clearly exculpate the defendant and it was not essential- to the defense. The preferable resolution of the Smith issue in this case is simply to affirm the court of appeals’ decision upholding the trial court’s ruling and hold that a grant of immunity by the court at the request of a defendant to a witness is inappropriate where that witness is a potential target of prosecution for the crime with which the defendant stands charged. People v. Guyton, 44 Colo.App. 548, 620 P.2d 50 (1980).
Accordingly, I would leave consideration of the Smith issue and the formulation of appropriate remedies for due process violations for another day.
I am authorized to say that Chief Justice QUINN joins me in this special concurrence.