## Facts

- William Joseph Maestas was charged by information with attempted robbery and two habitual criminal counts.
- Maestas timely requested a preliminary hearing in county court.
- At the preliminary hearing, the prosecution presented only one witness, a detective.
- The detective’s testimony consisted entirely of hearsay based on a telephone conversation with the alleged victim and information from a police file.
- The prosecution did not call the alleged victim or arresting officers.
- Maestas moved to strike the detective’s testimony as “100% hearsay” and argued it denied confrontation.
- Maestas also objected to being bound over on habitual criminal counts because no evidence supported those allegations at the preliminary hearing.
- The county court denied the motion to strike, ruled evidence on habitual criminal counts was unnecessary, and bound Maestas over on all counts.
- The district court denied Maestas’s motion to dismiss or, alternatively, for a new preliminary hearing.
- Maestas sought extraordinary relief in the Colorado Supreme Court in the nature of prohibition.

## Issues

1. Whether the prosecution must present preliminary-hearing evidence establishing probable cause for habitual criminal allegations before those allegations may be bound over to district court.
2. Whether probable cause for the substantive felony charge may be established at a preliminary hearing solely through hearsay testimony from an extraneous witness when direct evidence is reasonably available.

## Decision

- The court held the prosecution was not required to present evidence on habitual criminal allegations at the preliminary hearing because they do not constitute a separate substantive offense.
- The court held that, although hearsay may be used at a preliminary hearing, probable cause on the attempted robbery charge could not be established solely by second-hand hearsay when direct evidence was available.
- The court made the rule to show cause absolute and ordered that Maestas receive a new preliminary hearing.

## Legal Principles

- Colorado habitual criminal allegations function as sentence-enhancement provisions, not independent substantive crimes requiring a separate preliminary-hearing probable-cause showing.
- A preliminary hearing must provide a meaningful screening of unwarranted prosecutions; unlimited reliance on hearsay can defeat that function.
- While hearsay is not categorically barred at preliminary hearings, the prosecution may not rely exclusively on hearsay to establish probable cause for the underlying felony when reasonably obtainable direct, competent evidence exists.

## Conclusion

The court required a new preliminary hearing because the prosecution attempted to establish probable cause for attempted robbery solely through hearsay despite the apparent availability of direct witnesses, while also clarifying that habitual criminal allegations need not be supported by preliminary-hearing evidence as separate offenses.


Maestas v. District Court, 541 P.2d 889 (Colo. 1975)