## Facts

- E.G., a juvenile, was charged with two counts of sexual assault on a child as part of a pattern of abuse, alleged to have occurred in his grandmother’s basement.
- The grandmother allowed the prosecution unrestricted access to inspect and photograph the basement.
- E.G. moved for a court order requiring the grandmother (a nonparty) to allow the defense to enter, view, and photograph the basement.
- The trial court denied the motion, concluding it lacked authority to compel a third party to provide discovery access to a private residence.
- The court of appeals concluded courts have authority to order such access but affirmed the denial because E.G. did not show the inspection was necessary to present a defense.
- The Colorado Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether any rule or constitutional provision authorizes a court to order a third party to admit the defense into a private home for inspection.

## Issues

1. Whether a Colorado trial court has authority under Crim. P. 16 or Crim. P. 17 to order a private third party to allow the defense to inspect and photograph the third party’s home.
2. Whether the Sixth Amendment compulsory-process right or due process provides a basis to compel third-party access to a private residence for defense investigation.

## Decision

- The Colorado Supreme Court held the trial court lacked authority to order a third party to grant defense access to her private residence for discovery purposes.
- Crim. P. 16 did not authorize the order because the home was not within the possession or control of the prosecution or government personnel.
- Crim. P. 17’s subpoena power did not extend to compelled entry into a private dwelling for an inspection.
- Neither the Sixth Amendment’s compulsory-process clause nor due process required or authorized compelled defense access to a third party’s home.
- The court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals on alternate grounds (lack of authority), and did not reach whether access was necessary to the defense.

## Legal Principles

- There is no common-law right to criminal discovery; a trial court’s discovery authority must derive from a constitution, statute, or rule.
- Crim. P. 16 generally covers disclosure of material information within the prosecutor’s control and does not authorize compelled defense inspection of a third party’s residence outside government control.
- Crim. P. 17 subpoenas do not authorize a court to compel a third party to admit the defense into a private home for investigative inspection.
- The Sixth Amendment compulsory-process right and due process protections do not create a general right to discovery-style access to a third party’s private home absent a specific legal authorization.
- A court abuses its discretion when it acts beyond its legal authority; denying an order the court lacks power to issue is not an abuse of discretion.

## Conclusion

The Colorado Supreme Court held that trial courts lack rule-based or constitutional authority to compel a private third party to open a home to the defense for discovery inspection, and it affirmed denial of E.G.’s requested access order on that ground.


People in the Interest of E.G., 368 P.3d 946 (Colo. 2016)