## Facts

- The district attorney charged Bradley John Herron with second-degree assault against Sarah Jane Gansz.
- Herron waived a preliminary hearing and the case proceeded toward trial in district court.
- Before trial, the district attorney moved to dismiss the case under Colorado Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(a).
- Gansz sought to oppose the dismissal and to be heard on the motion.
- The trial court ruled Gansz lacked standing to participate under Rule 48(a) and granted the prosecution’s motion to dismiss.
- Gansz appealed, asserting that Colorado’s victims’ rights provision (Colo. Const. art. II, § 16a) and its implementing statutes entitled her to be heard and to challenge the dismissal.

## Issues

1. Whether Colo. Const. art. II, § 16a gives an alleged crime victim standing to appeal a trial court order granting the prosecution’s Rule 48(a) motion to dismiss criminal charges.
2. Whether Colo. Const. art. II, § 16a and its implementing statutes give an alleged crime victim a right to be heard on the prosecution’s motion to dismiss.

## Decision

- The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals.
- The court held that Colo. Const. art. II, § 16a does not confer standing on an alleged crime victim to appeal an order granting a district attorney’s motion to dismiss criminal charges.
- The court held that neither § 16a nor the implementing statutes (§§ 24-4.1-302 to -304, C.R.S.) grant an alleged crime victim the right to contest or be heard on a district attorney’s motion to dismiss a criminal action.

## Legal Principles

- Criminal prosecutions are conducted on behalf of the state; the victim is not a party with authority to control charging or dismissal decisions.
- The decision to file or dismiss criminal charges is committed to prosecutorial discretion, subject to limited judicial oversight under procedural rules.
- Article II, § 16a grants victims participatory rights (“informed,” “present,” and “heard when relevant”) only at “critical stages” as defined by the General Assembly.
- Where the implementing statutes do not designate a prosecutor’s motion to dismiss as a “critical stage” requiring victim input, no constitutional or statutory right exists for a victim to be heard on that motion.
- Victims’ rights provisions do not create independent appellate standing for victims to challenge prosecutorial dismissal decisions.

## Conclusion

The court concluded that Colorado’s constitutional and statutory victims’ rights scheme provides limited participatory rights defined by statute, but does not authorize a crime victim to oppose or be heard on a prosecutor’s Rule 48(a) motion to dismiss, nor to appeal an order granting dismissal.


Gansz v. People, 888 P.2d 256 (Colo. 1995)