 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Paul8/14/2003
ation was substantially justified. See People v. Castro, 657 P.2d 932 (Colo. 1983).
Here, the trial court found that defendant and his counsel had acted in bad faith in an attempt to blindside the prosecution by failing timely to provide the defense expert's report and had also failed to provide foundational material identified in the untimely report.
There is record support for the trial court's findings, and we perceive no abuse of discretion in its declaration of a mistrial. Under the circumstances, it would have been unjust to the prosecution to proceed with the trial when it was not and could not have been prepared to cross-examine the expert. See § 18-1-301(2)(b)(III), C.R.S. 2002; People v. Hayward, 55 P.3d 803 (Colo. App. 2002)(abuse of discretion standard applies in determining whether mistrial was warranted).
And even if, as defendant asserts, a de novo standard of review applies, see People v. Berreth, 13 P.3d 1214 (Colo. 2000), we would reach the same conclusion. The facts here demonstrate that proceeding with the trial would have been incompatible with the administration of honest, fair, even-handed justice to the prosecution.
The order is affirmed.
JUDGE NEY and JUDGE WEBB concur.
|