The Colorado Supreme Court granted a petition for writ of certiorari in *Erin Amber Trujillo v. The People of the State of Colorado*, setting up a critical review of when the state's witness retaliation statute applies in criminal cases. The court's decision, issued Jan. 12, 2026, will examine fundamental questions about witness protection laws and their scope.
The case centers on Colorado Revised Statutes section 18-8-706, the state's witness retaliation law, and specifically challenges the interpretation established in *People v. Hickman*, 988 P.2d 628 (Colo. 1999). The central legal question involves whether individuals can be prosecuted for witness retaliation when the alleged victim or witness has not yet testified or even been scheduled to testify in legal proceedings.
Trujillo's petition presents three reframed questions that the Colorado Supreme Court agreed to consider. The first asks whether the *Hickman* precedent created a rule allowing prosecution for retaliation against victims or witnesses who have not yet participated in legal proceedings. This question goes to the heart of how broadly Colorado's witness protection statutes should be interpreted.
The second question challenges the *Hickman* ruling more directly, asking whether any such rule contradicts the statute's plain language, undermines legislative intent, and creates equal protection concerns under the Colorado Constitution. This constitutional challenge suggests that Trujillo's legal team believes the current interpretation may violate fundamental fairness principles by creating unclear standards for prosecution.
The third question addresses the sufficiency of evidence in Trujillo's specific case, asking whether the evidence was adequate to prove attempted retaliation when the defendant allegedly threatened or harassed a potential victim in a criminal prosecution that had not even been initiated. This question focuses on the temporal relationship between alleged threatening behavior and actual criminal proceedings.
The *Hickman* case from 1999 has apparently established precedent allowing for broader interpretation of when witness retaliation can occur. However, Trujillo's challenge suggests this interpretation may have expanded beyond the statute's intended scope. The case appears to involve allegations of threatening or harassing behavior directed at someone who might become a witness in future criminal proceedings, rather than someone already participating in an ongoing case.
Witness retaliation statutes typically aim to protect the integrity of the judicial process by preventing intimidation of those who cooperate with law enforcement or testify in court proceedings. However, the scope of these protections—particularly regarding timing—has significant implications for both prosecutorial authority and individual rights.
The Colorado Supreme Court's decision to grant certiorari indicates the justices view this as an important legal question with broader implications beyond Trujillo's individual case. The court explicitly denied certiorari on all other issues raised in Trujillo's petition, focusing specifically on the witness retaliation questions.
The case originated in the Colorado Court of Appeals, which heard the matter as case number 22CA1067 before Trujillo petitioned the state's highest court for review. The Supreme Court's en banc consideration suggests the justices recognize the significance of clarifying this area of law for Colorado's criminal justice system.
Legal practitioners and scholars will likely watch this case closely, as it could establish new precedent for how witness protection statutes are interpreted and applied. The outcome could affect prosecutorial strategies in cases involving alleged witness intimidation and may influence how defense attorneys challenge such charges.
The constitutional questions raised in Trujillo's petition add another layer of complexity to the case. Equal protection challenges require courts to examine whether laws are being applied fairly and consistently across similar situations. If the court finds that the current interpretation of the witness retaliation statute creates arbitrary distinctions or unclear standards, it could require more precise guidelines for prosecution.
The timing element highlighted in this case reflects broader tensions in criminal law between protecting potential victims and ensuring clear legal standards. While law enforcement agencies may argue that early intervention prevents escalation of threatening behavior, defense advocates may contend that prosecuting conduct before any formal legal proceedings begin stretches criminal statutes beyond their intended purpose.
The Colorado Supreme Court has not yet scheduled oral arguments in the case, and a decision timeline has not been announced. The court's ultimate ruling will provide important guidance for lower courts, prosecutors, and defense attorneys handling similar cases throughout Colorado.
This case represents a significant opportunity for the Colorado Supreme Court to clarify the boundaries of witness protection laws and ensure they serve their intended purpose while respecting constitutional protections. The outcome will likely influence how Colorado courts handle witness intimidation cases for years to come, particularly in situations involving alleged threats made before formal criminal proceedings begin.