The Colorado Supreme Court issued an en banc decision on January 12, 2026, in *The People of the State of Colorado v. Juan Manuel Castorena*, addressing complex procedural issues that span multiple judicial districts. The case, designated as 2026 CO 2 and docketed as No. 25SA179, represents a rare original proceeding brought directly to the state's highest court under Colorado Appellate Rule 21.
The case stems from Adams County District Court Case No. 20CR1055, originally overseen by Honorable Brett M. Martin. The matter evolved into an original proceeding that required the Colorado Supreme Court's direct intervention, bypassing the typical appellate process through intermediate courts.
Justice Hood delivered the opinion of the court, with Chief Justice Marquez, Justice Boatright, Justice Samour, and Justice Berkenkotter joining the majority. The unanimous nature of the decision suggests the court reached a clear consensus on the legal issues presented.
The case involves multiple jurisdictions and legal offices, reflecting its complex procedural nature. The First Judicial District, represented by District Attorney Alexis King and Senior Appellate Deputy District Attorney Rebecca A. Adams from Golden, Colorado, appeared for the plaintiff. The defendant's interests were represented by Public Defender Megan A. Ring and Deputy Public Defenders John Walsh and Jeffrey Simonek from Brighton, Colorado.
The proceedings also drew participation from additional governmental entities. The Adams County District Court was represented by Colorado Attorney General Philip J. Weiser and Assistant Solicitor General Emily Burke Buckley from Denver. The Seventeenth Judicial District Attorney's Office, led by District Attorney Brian S. Mason and Senior Deputy District Attorney Todd Bluth from Brighton, also participated as a respondent.
Adding to the case's significance, the Korey Wise Innocence Project appeared as amicus curiae, represented by attorney Jud Lohnes from Boulder. The involvement of this organization, known for its work on wrongful conviction cases, suggests the matter may have implications for criminal justice reform or procedural protections for defendants.
The court's opinion addresses questions under Criminal Procedure Rule 16(I)(c)(2), though the specific nature of the procedural dispute is not fully detailed in the available portions of the opinion. Rule 16 governs discovery in criminal cases, particularly the prosecution's obligations to disclose evidence to the defense. Subsection (I)(c)(2) typically deals with specific timing and procedural requirements for such disclosures.
Original proceedings under Colorado Appellate Rule 21 are extraordinary remedies typically reserved for cases involving jurisdictional disputes, abuse of discretion by lower courts, or situations where no adequate remedy exists through normal appellate channels. The fact that this case warranted such treatment indicates the Colorado Supreme Court viewed the underlying issues as requiring immediate resolution at the highest judicial level.
The involvement of both the First and Seventeenth Judicial Districts suggests the case may have raised questions about prosecutorial jurisdiction, venue, or coordination between different district attorney offices. Such multi-district cases often arise when crimes cross jurisdictional boundaries or when there are disputes about which office should handle prosecution.
The timing of the case is notable, with the original Adams County case filed in 2020 (based on the case number 20CR1055) and reaching final resolution at the Colorado Supreme Court in early 2026. This six-year timeline suggests the case involved complex factual and legal issues that required extensive litigation and careful consideration by the courts.
The en banc nature of the decision means all justices of the Colorado Supreme Court participated, rather than a typical three-justice panel. Courts typically reserve en banc consideration for cases of exceptional importance or those that may establish significant precedent affecting future cases.
The case's designation as 2026 CO 2 indicates it was among the first major opinions issued by the Colorado Supreme Court in 2026, suggesting the court prioritized its resolution. This early placement in the court's annual numbering system may reflect the urgency or importance the justices attached to resolving the underlying legal questions.
While the complete details of the court's holding and reasoning are not available from the partial opinion text, the case appears to address fundamental questions about criminal discovery procedures that could affect how prosecutors and defense attorneys handle evidence disclosure in future cases throughout Colorado.
The unanimous decision by the court provides clarity for legal practitioners and lower courts about the proper application of Criminal Procedure Rule 16(I)(c)(2) in multi-district cases. Such guidance helps ensure consistent application of discovery rules across Colorado's judicial system.