Editor’s Note: Law Week Colorado edits court opinion summaries for style and, when necessary, length.
According to a Colorado Supreme Court opinion, on Nov. 18, 2022, Ashleigh Walthour drove her car off a snowy road into some trees. She ran four or five blocks to her home and called the Aurora Police Department.
When the police arrived at Walthour’s home to speak with her, she smelled like alcohol and had slurred speech, dilated pupils and bloodshot eyes, the opinion added. She admitted to having consumed a shooter of Jack Daniels and was unable to perform voluntary roadside maneuvers. Walthour was arrested and taken to the Aurora City Jail, where she consented to a blood test. The police submitted Walthour’s blood sample to the Colorado Bureau of Investigation for processing Nov. 23. The prosecution charged Walthour with driving under the influence and careless driving.
Walthour appeared in court for the first time Jan. 6. At that hearing, she notified the court she would be seeking the assistance of the Public Defender’s Office. The court set a second hearing for Feb. 6. However, at the second hearing, Walthour explained she hadn’t qualified for a public defender and would be representing herself. At the same hearing, the prosecution said they had not yet received the blood test results from the CBI but that they “should” have the results “hopefully within the next week or two.” The court set a third pretrial conference for March 7 and directed the prosecution to disclose the test results by Feb. 28 at 5 p.m.
As it turned out, the prosecutor didn’t have any test results to disclose on that date, according to the opinion. While the prosecutor’s office called the CBI at least twice during February to check on Walthour’s test results, the CBI hadn’t provided those results by the court-imposed Feb. 28 deadline.
At the March 7 conference, the prosecutor tried to explain the circumstances, observing the CBI had generally been taking about 90 to 110 days to complete testing and they were still within that time frame since Walthour’s blood had been sent to the CBI 97 days earlier, the opinion added. The prosecutor further noted the local district attorney’s office had no power to compel the CBI, a state-wide agency, to produce test results absent a deadline such as the “[thirty-five] days before trial” obligation established in Colorado Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(I)(b)(3).
The court disagreed and suppressed the evidence, citing the prosecutor’s duty under Crim. P. 16(I)(b)(3) to provide the results of scientific tests “as soon as practicable” and Crim. P. 16(I)(b)(4) to “ensure that a flow of information is maintained” between the prosecution and various investigative agencies.
A day later, on March 8, the prosecutor received the blood test results from the CBI. The toxicology report shows Walthour’s blood alcohol content was 0.160 grams/100 mL, which is twice the legal limit, the opinion noted citing Colorado Revised Statute 42-4-1301(2)(a).
The prosecution then filed this C.A.R. 21 petition, asking both Walthour and the trial court to show cause why the court’s preemptive suppression of the blood test results shouldn’t be reversed.
The Colorado Supreme Court exercised its jurisdiction under C.A.R. 21.
According to the opinion, Crim. P. 16(I)(b)(3) requires prosecutors to disclose the results of scientific exams such as blood alcohol tests to defendants “as soon as practicable but not later than [thirty-five] days before trial.”
In the case underlying this original proceeding, the trial court announced it would suppress blood alcohol test results when no trial had been set and the prosecution hadn’t yet received the results of the test from the CBI, the opinion added. The opinion noted Rule 16 offers no support for such an order. The Colorado Supreme Court en banc unanimously made its rule to show cause absolute, reversed the trial court’s suppression order and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.