Editor’s Note: Law Week Colorado edits court opinion summaries for style and, when necessary, length.
The prosecution appealed the judgment dismissing a Jefferson County criminal case against Shawn Spomer based on a violation of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers. The district court concluded that the IAD’s protection extended to Spomer’s case because, while he was in custody in another state, an open warrant for his arrest in this case constituted a “detainer” under the IAD.
According to the opinion, this case presented an issue of first impression in Colorado: Is an arrest warrant, standing alone, a detainer under the IAD such that its mere existence, without more, triggers the IAD’s requirements?
The Colorado Court of Appeals concluded that the arrest warrant in this case didn’t constitute a detainer for IAD purposes. It found that the district court erred by treating it as a detainer and finding a violation of the IAD.
The appeals court reversed the judgment of dismissal and remanded the case for the charges to be reinstated and for the district court to address the additional issues that were left unresolved when it dismissed the case.
William Harmon appealed his conviction of attempted first-degree murder and two counts of stalking.
The resolution of Harmon’s claims required the Colorado Court of Appeals to address the novel issue of whether a prosecutor may introduce into evidence in a criminal trial a deceased witness’s testimony that was given at a prior civil trial.
Because Harmon’s counsel was fully motivated to vigorously cross-examine the witness at the prior civil trial and had ample opportunities to do so, the appeals court concluded that the trial court did not violate Harmon’s confrontation rights or the hearsay rule by admitting the testimony at the criminal trial.
The appeals court affirmed.