Court Opinion

ID: 9553674
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 19:33:21.232693+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:32:04.162915
License: Public Domain

Justice MULLARKEY,
specially concurring:
Although I concur in the majority’s conclusion that the evidence should not have been suppressed, I write separately to emphasize that suppression of evidence because of prosecutorial misconduct may be an appropriate sanction. See People v. Shannon, 683 P.2d 792, 794-95 (Colo.1984) (affirming trial court’s exclusion of rebuttal testimony because of prosecutor’s failure to comply with Crim.P. 16). The trial court must exercise its sound discretion in fashioning an appropriate remedy for pros-ecutorial misconduct with due regard for the “significant public interest in criminal prosecutions that might well be defeated by the imposition of [an excessive] sanction.” People v. Sams, 685 P.2d 157, 163 (Colo.1984).
By analogy, I suggest that the court should consider some of the same factors which govern the imposition of sanctions against attorneys who delay or disregard court orders in civil matters. See Nagy v. *1094District Court, 762 P.2d 158, 161 (Colo. 1988) (“If sanctions are warranted in a case, the trial judge must craft an appropriate sanction by considering the complete range of sanctions and weighing the sanctions in light of the full record of the case.”). Dismissal or another sanction which is the equivalent of dismissal should be a last resort for attorney misconduct. Id. Here, I do not condone the prosecutor’s handling of the case but I agree that the sanction imposed was inappropriate and the order should be reversed.