AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The State appealed an order denying a motion for reconsideration related to a discovery issue, specifically concerning the State's requirement to produce certain photographic evidence to the defense. The State argued for retaining exclusive possession of the images, suggesting that the defense should view them at the police department, rather than providing copies to the defense (para 4).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant (State): Argued that it should retain exclusive possession of photographic evidence and that the defense should be required to view these images at the police department if needed (para 4).
• Defendant-Appellee (Colton Putt): [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the order requiring the State to produce a copy of certain photographic evidence to the defense was contrary to law.
• Whether the State's interest in retaining exclusive possession of the photographic evidence was sufficiently compelling to warrant immediate appellate review.

Disposition

• The appeal was dismissed (para 7).

Reasons

• M. Monica Zamora, with Daniel J. Gallegos and Jennifer L. Attrep concurring, found that the order at issue was interlocutory and not normally appealable except upon the grant of applications for interlocutory appeals, which was not the case here (para 2). The court held that the constitutional right to appeal does not confer an absolute right to appeal every adverse ruling immediately and that the State failed to demonstrate that the underlying ruling was contrary to law or that its interest was sufficiently compelling (para 3). The court reasoned that the district court's decision to require the State to provide a single copy of the images to be guarded in the law office of defense counsel, without further replication or distribution, was a reasonable balancing of the defendant's entitlement to discovery against the State's concerns regarding the sensitivity of the images (para 5). The court also noted that the State had other avenues to challenge the order, such as applying for an interlocutory appeal or refusing to comply and being held in contempt, which it did not pursue (para 6).