In Re: The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado v. Juan Johnny HERNANDEZ ( 2021 )

<div data-spec-version="0.0.3dev" data-generated-on="2024-07-14">
<div class="generated-from-iceberg vlex-toc">
<link href="https://doc-stylesheets.vlex.com/ldml-xml.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"></link>
<div class="ldml-decision"><div class="ldml-decision"><div class="ldml-header header ldml-header content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-content-heading-label="Header" data-refglobal="case:inrethepeopleofthestateofcoloradovhernandezcaseno20sa322488p3d1055june7,2021"><p class="ldml-metadata"><span class="ldml-cite"><b class="ldml-bold">488 P.3d 1055</b></span></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><b class="ldml-bold"><span class="ldml-party">In Re: The <span class="ldml-name">PEOPLE of the State of Colorado</span>, <span class="ldml-role">Plaintiff</span></span>,</b></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><b class="ldml-bold">v.</b><b class="ldml-bold"><span class="ldml-party"><span class="ldml-name">Juan Johnny HERNANDEZ</span>, <span class="ldml-role">Defendant</span></span>.</b></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><b class="ldml-bold">Supreme Court <span class="ldml-cite">Case No. 20SA322</span> </b></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><b class="ldml-bold"><span class="ldml-court">Supreme Court of Colorado</span>.</b></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><span class="ldml-date"><b class="ldml-bold">June 7, 2021</b></span></p></div><div class="ldml-counsel header ldml-header content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-content-heading-label="Counsel"><p data-paragraph-id="171" class="ldml-paragraph no-indent mt-2"><span data-paragraph-id="171" data-sentence-id="171" class="ldml-sentence">Attorneys for <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-role">Plaintiff</span></span>: <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawyer">Brian Mason</span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity">District Attorney</span>, <span class="ldml-entity">Seventeenth Judicial District</span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawyer">Cameron Munier</span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity">Senior Deputy District Attorney</span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawyer">Mike Whitney</span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity">Senior Deputy District Attorney</span>, Brighton, Colorado</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="373" class="ldml-paragraph no-indent mt-2"><span data-paragraph-id="373" data-sentence-id="373" class="ldml-sentence">Attorneys for <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-role">Defendant</span></span>: <span class="ldml-lawfirm">Danielle M. McCarthy, P.C.</span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawyer">Danielle M. McCarthy</span></span>, Denver, Colorado, <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawfirm">Law Office of Jessica Eve Jones</span>, LLC</span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawyer">Jessica E. Jones</span></span>, Denver, Colorado, <span class="ldml-entity">Walta LLC</span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawyer">Mark G. Walta</span></span>, Denver, Colorado</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="582" class="ldml-paragraph no-indent mt-2"><span data-paragraph-id="582" data-sentence-id="582" class="ldml-sentence">Attorneys for <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-role">Respondent</span></span> <span class="ldml-entity">Honorable Tomee Crespin</span>: <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawyer">Philip J. Weiser</span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity">Attorney General</span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawyer">Emily B. Buckley</span></span>, Assistant <span class="ldml-entity">Attorney General</span>, Denver, Colorado</span></p></div><h2 class="ldml-opinionheading"><span data-paragraph-id="730" class="ldml-paragraph "><span class="ldml-judgepanel"><span data-paragraph-id="730" data-sentence-id="730" class="ldml-sentence">En Banc</span></span></span></h2><div class="ldml-opinion"><p data-paragraph-id="737" class="ldml-paragraph no-indent mt-4"><span class="ldml-opinionauthor content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-content-heading-label="Opinion (BERKENKOTTER)"><span data-paragraph-id="737" data-sentence-id="737" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">JUSTICE <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-judge">BERKENKOTTER</span></span> <span class="ldml-opiniontype">delivered <span class="ldml-entity">the Opinion of <span class="ldml-entity">the Court</span></span></span></span>.</span></span></p><p data-paragraph-id="793" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="793" data-sentence-id="793" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_793"><span class="ldml-cite">¶1</span></a></span> In this original proceeding, <span class="ldml-entity">defendant</span> <span class="ldml-entity">Juan Johnny Hernandez</span> asks <span class="ldml-entity">us</span> to conclude that <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span>'s order allowing <span class="ldml-entity">the prosecution</span>'s witnesses to testify live via a videoconference platform during his <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"make my day"</span> immunity hearing <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote">"MMD hearing"</span>)</span> violated his confrontation right, his right to a public hearing, and the spirit of <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_793"><span class="ldml-cite">Crim. P. 43</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="793" data-sentence-id="1144" class="ldml-sentence">Hernandez also asks <span class="ldml-entity">us</span> to conclude that <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> was denied equal protection of the law based on his assertion that other judicial officers might have ruled differently.<span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-rep="P.3d" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-val="1058" data-vol="488" data-id="pagenumber_1307"></span></span></p><p data-paragraph-id="1307" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="1307" data-sentence-id="1308" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_1308"><span class="ldml-cite">¶2</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">We</span> issued a rule to show cause to consider, as a matter of first impression, whether <span class="ldml-entity">a trial court</span> may properly allow an MMD hearing to proceed with live witness testimony using a videoconference platform instead of in-person courtroom testimony due to specific public health concerns related to the <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">COVID-19</span></a></span> pandemic.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="1307" data-sentence-id="1630" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> conclude that <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span> was well within its authority to allow the hearing to proceed via a videoconference platform and that such a proceeding does not violate Hernandez's confrontation right.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="1307" data-sentence-id="1833" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> additionally conclude that Hernandez failed to preserve his public hearing argument.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="1307" data-sentence-id="1921" class="ldml-sentence">Finally, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> conclude that <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span> does not violate Hernandez's right to equal protection by allowing witnesses to appear at the hearing via WebEx,<a href="#note-fr1" class="ldml-noteanchor" id="note-ref-fr1">1</a> even if other judges might permit entirely in-person proceedings.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="1307" data-sentence-id="2142" class="ldml-sentence">Accordingly, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> discharge the rule to show cause.</span></p><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-ordinal_start="1" data-value="I. Facts and Procedural History" data-specifier="I" data-ordinal_end="1" data-types="background" data-content-heading-label="I. Facts and Procedural History" data-parsed="true" data-id="heading_2191" data-format="upper_case_roman_numeral" data-confidences="very_high" id="heading_2191"><span data-paragraph-id="2191" class="ldml-paragraph "><b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="2191" data-sentence-id="2191" class="ldml-sentence">I.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="2191" data-sentence-id="2194" class="ldml-sentence">Facts and Procedural History</span></b></span></section><p data-paragraph-id="2222" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="2222" data-sentence-id="2222" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_2222"><span class="ldml-cite">¶3</span></a></span> Hernandez, following an incident at his apartment in <span class="ldml-entity">October 2019</span>, was charged with attempted first degree murder, possession of a weapon by a previous offender, two counts of crimes of violence, and one count of possession with intent to manufacture or distribute a controlled substance.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="2513" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="2513" data-sentence-id="2513" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_2513"><span class="ldml-cite">¶4</span></a></span> On <span class="ldml-entity">March 16, 2020</span>, due to the rapidly spreading novel coronavirus, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">COVID-19</span></a></span>, the Chief Justice, pursuant to the authority granted in Chief Justice Directive 95-01, issued the <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-refname">Order Regarding</span> <span class="ldml-cite">COVID-19</span></a></span> and Operation of Colorado <span class="ldml-entity">State Courts</span>, ceasing the normal operation of Colorado <span class="ldml-entity">state courts</span> and suspending jury calls through <span class="ldml-entity">April 2020</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="2513" data-sentence-id="2856" class="ldml-sentence">The order was subsequently expanded and extended to preclude individuals from being summoned for jury service until <span class="ldml-entity">August 2020</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="2513" data-sentence-id="2985" class="ldml-sentence">These decisions were predicated on guidance from public health officials and were implemented for the protection of the public's health, safety, and welfare.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="3142" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="3142" data-sentence-id="3142" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_3142"><span class="ldml-cite">¶5</span></a></span> On <span class="ldml-entity">March 19, 2020</span>, to further address the rapidly changing circumstances due to <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">COVID-19</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity">this court</span> amended and adopted a change to <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_3142"><span class="ldml-cite">Crim. P. 43</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="3142" data-sentence-id="3291" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The Amendment</span>, known as the <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"Public Health Crisis Exception,"</span> stated: <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"If <span class="ldml-entity">the court</span> finds that a public health crisis exists, it may, <i class="ldml-italics">in its discretion and with <span class="ldml-entity">the defendant</span>'s oral or written consent, allow <span class="ldml-entity">the defendant</span> to appear by an interactive audiovisual device</i> for a preliminary hearing ...."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="3142" data-sentence-id="3592" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_3291"><span class="ldml-cite">Crim. P. 43<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(f)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(2)</span></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-referencenote">effective <span class="ldml-entity">Mar. 19, 2020</span></span>)</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-referencenote">emphasis added</span>)</span></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="3653" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="3653" data-sentence-id="3653" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_3653"><span class="ldml-cite">¶6 Rule 43</span></a></span> was subsequently amended to extend the use of an interactive audiovisual device, under this paragraph, to include <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"any proceeding that does not involve a jury,"</span> and to require that defense <span class="ldml-entity">counsel</span> have a means by which to confer confidentially with <span class="ldml-entity">the defendant</span> and that the proceeding remain <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"open to the public ... allow<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[ing]</span> members of the public <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(including victims)</span> to hear or watch."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="3653" data-sentence-id="4054" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_3653"><span class="ldml-cite">Crim. P. 43<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(f)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(2)</span></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-referencenote">effective <span class="ldml-entity">Apr. 7, 2020</span></span>)</span></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="4097" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="4097" data-sentence-id="4097" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_4097"><span class="ldml-cite">¶7</span></a></span> Throughout this timeframe, chief judges around <span class="ldml-entity">the state</span> began to issue the first of many local administrative orders addressing the impact of <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">COVID-19</span></a></span> on <span class="ldml-entity">court</span> operations in light of the unique and specific circumstances in each of their judicial districts.<a href="#note-fr2" class="ldml-noteanchor" id="note-ref-fr2">2</a></span> </p><p data-paragraph-id="4359" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="4359" data-sentence-id="4359" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_4359"><span class="ldml-cite">¶8</span></a></span> In <span class="ldml-entity">July 2020</span>, Hernandez filed a <span class="ldml-entity">pretrial motion</span> for immunity under <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-rep="P.3d" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-val="1059" data-vol="488" data-id="pagenumber_4429"></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_4359"><span class="ldml-cite">section 18-1-704.5</span></a></span>, C.R.S. <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-entity">2020</span>)</span>—otherwise known as the <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"make my day"</span> law—and requested a hearing on the <span class="ldml-entity">motion</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="4359" data-sentence-id="4544" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The prosecution</span> opposed Hernandez's motion, and, due to the ongoing public health threat posed by the <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">COVID-19</span></a></span> pandemic, filed a <span class="ldml-entity">request to proceed</span> by way of WebEx.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="4359" data-sentence-id="4709" class="ldml-sentence">In <span class="ldml-entity">the prosecution</span>'s <span class="ldml-entity">motion to proceed</span> via video testimony, it requested permission to have all <span class="ldml-entity">parties</span> appear and testify remotely.<a href="#note-fr3" class="ldml-noteanchor" id="note-ref-fr3">3</a></span> <span data-paragraph-id="4359" data-sentence-id="4842" class="ldml-sentence">Alternatively, the motion sought to allow <span class="ldml-entity">the prosecution</span> and its hearing witnesses, three police officers, to appear at the MMD hearing by <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"interactive audiovisual device."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="4359" data-sentence-id="5016" class="ldml-sentence">Hernandez objected to conducting the hearing over a videoconference platform and asserted that <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> had a right to be physically present and accompanied by <span class="ldml-entity">counsel</span> and that virtual testimony violated his <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_5016"><span class="ldml-cite">Sixth Amendment</span></a></span> confrontation right.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="4359" data-sentence-id="5255" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">He</span> further asserted that, because other criminal <span class="ldml-entity">cases</span> in the <span class="ldml-entity">Seventeenth Judicial District</span> were proceeding in person, <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span> would violate his equal protection rights if it allowed <span class="ldml-entity">the prosecution</span> to appear, and the witnesses to testify, virtually.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="5513" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="5513" data-sentence-id="5513" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_5513"><span class="ldml-cite">¶9</span></a></span> Citing <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-refname">Chief Judge Emily Anderson's Seventh Amended Administrative Order Regarding Court Operations Under</span> <span class="ldml-cite">COVID-19</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referencenote">Effective <span class="ldml-entity">August 31, 2020</span></span></span>-<span class="ldml-entity">October 2, 2020</span>, <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span> granted <span class="ldml-entity">the prosecution</span>'s <span class="ldml-entity">motion to proceed</span> using live videoconference testimony.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="5513" data-sentence-id="5772" class="ldml-sentence">In its written order, <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span> cited the provision stating:</span></p><blockquote data-paragraph-id="b_5838" class="ldml-blockquote"><span data-sentence-id="5838" class="ldml-sentence">Judicial officers shall continue to conduct proceedings via remote technology wherever possible.</span> <span data-sentence-id="5935" class="ldml-sentence">Remote technology continues to be the recommended and preferred means of conducting proceedings.</span> <span data-sentence-id="6032" class="ldml-sentence">Judicial officers, <i class="ldml-italics">in their discretion</i> and as judicial resources allow, may continue to conduct proceedings in all docket types, by remote means only, through <span class="ldml-entity">October 2, 2020</span>.</span> <span data-sentence-id="6208" class="ldml-sentence"><i class="ldml-italics">No judicial officer is required</i> by this Order <i class="ldml-italics">to hold any in-person proceedings.</i></span></blockquote><p data-paragraph-id="6288" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="6288" data-sentence-id="6288" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-referencenote">Emphases added</span>.)</span></span></p><p data-paragraph-id="6305" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="6305" data-sentence-id="6305" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_6305"><span class="ldml-cite">¶10</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">The trial court</span> permitted <span class="ldml-entity">the prosecution</span> to appear, and its witnesses to testify, remotely via videoconference technology <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"due to the current public health crisis,"</span> because the <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"physical appearances of witnesses creates a physical risk due to the rate of contagion and transfer of C<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[OVID]</span>-19."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="6305" data-sentence-id="6604" class="ldml-sentence">Further, <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span> held that the <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_6604"><span class="ldml-cite">Colorado Rules of Criminal Procedure</span></a></span> did not prohibit the use of video testimony by witnesses at evidentiary hearings and that the <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_6604"><span class="ldml-cite">Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure</span></a></span> expressly permit absentee testimony under some circumstances.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="6305" data-sentence-id="6870" class="ldml-sentence">It found such circumstances were met in connection with the MMD hearing.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="6305" data-sentence-id="6943" class="ldml-sentence">However, because Hernandez did not consent to appear remotely, <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span> directed that <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> and his <span class="ldml-entity">counsel</span> attend the hearing in person, as required under <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_6943"><span class="ldml-cite">Crim. P. 43</span></a></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="7115" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="7115" data-sentence-id="7115" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_7115"><span class="ldml-cite">¶11</span></a></span> Hernandez then filed a petition invoking our original jurisdiction under <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">C.A.R. 21</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="7115" data-sentence-id="7203" class="ldml-sentence">After reviewing the petition, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> issued a rule to show cause.</span></p></div><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-ordinal_start="2" data-value="II. Analysis" data-specifier="II" data-ordinal_end="2" data-types="analysis" data-content-heading-label="II. Analysis" data-parsed="true" data-id="heading_7264" data-format="upper_case_roman_numeral" data-confidences="very_high" id="heading_7264"><span data-paragraph-id="7264" class="ldml-paragraph "><b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="7264" data-sentence-id="7264" class="ldml-sentence">II.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="7264" data-sentence-id="7268" class="ldml-sentence">Analysis</span></b></span></section><p data-paragraph-id="7276" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="7276" data-sentence-id="7276" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_7276"><span class="ldml-cite">¶12</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">We</span> begin by discussing our jurisdiction to hear this matter pursuant to <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">C.A.R. 21</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="7276" data-sentence-id="7363" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> then detail the applicable law concerning <span class="ldml-entity">defendants</span>' confrontation and equal protection rights.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="7276" data-sentence-id="7463" class="ldml-sentence">Applying the applicable law to <span class="ldml-entity">the facts of <span class="ldml-entity">this case</span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> conclude that <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span> does not violate Hernandez's confrontation right by permitting <span class="ldml-entity">the prosecution</span> to appear, and its witnesses to testify, via videoconference technology at an MMD hearing.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="7276" data-sentence-id="7721" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> also conclude that Hernandez failed to preserve his argument that a hybrid videoconference hearing<a href="#note-fr4" class="ldml-noteanchor" id="note-ref-fr4">4</a> would violate his right to a public hearing.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="7276" data-sentence-id="7868" class="ldml-sentence">Finally, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> conclude that the decision to proceed with witnesses appearing virtually via videoconferencing technology does not violate Hernandez's right to equal protection under the law.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="7276" data-sentence-id="8056" class="ldml-sentence">Accordingly, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> discharge the rule to show cause.<span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-rep="P.3d" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-val="1060" data-vol="488" data-id="pagenumber_8105"></span></span></p><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth2" data-ordinal_start="1" data-value="A. Original Jurisdiction" data-specifier="A" data-ordinal_end="1" data-content-heading-label=" A. Original Jurisdiction" data-parsed="true" data-id="heading_8105" data-format="upper_case_letters" id="heading_8105"><span data-paragraph-id="8105" class="ldml-paragraph "> <b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="8105" data-sentence-id="8106" class="ldml-sentence">A.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="8105" data-sentence-id="8109" class="ldml-sentence">Original Jurisdiction</span></b></span></section><p data-paragraph-id="8130" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="8130" data-sentence-id="8131" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_8131"><span class="ldml-cite">¶13</span></a></span> It is entirely within our discretion to exercise original jurisdiction pursuant to <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">C.A.R. 21</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="8130" data-sentence-id="8229" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-signal"><i class="ldml-italics">See</i></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_8250,sentence_8131"><span class="ldml-cite">C.A.R. 21<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">"Relief under this rule ... is a matter wholly within the discretion of <span class="ldml-entity">the supreme court</span>."</span></span>)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/892737742" data-vids="892737742" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_8131"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Fognani v. Young</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">115 P.3d 1268, 1271</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">2005</span>)</span></a></span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="8130" data-sentence-id="8397" class="ldml-sentence">Original relief under <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">C.A.R. 21</span></a></span> provides <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"an extraordinary remedy that is limited in both purpose and availability."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="8130" data-sentence-id="8514" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:peoplevrosas,2020co22" data-prop-ids="sentence_8397"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">People v. Rosas</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">2020 CO 22</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_8397"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 19</span></a></span></span>, <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:inrethepeopleofthestateofcoloradovrosascaseno19sa242459p3d540march16,2020"><span class="ldml-cite">459 P.3d 540, 545</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-cert">quoting</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:villasathighlandparkhomeownersassn,incvvillasathighlandpark,llc,2017co53"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Villas at Highland Park Homeowners Ass'n v. Villas at Highland Park, LLC</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">2017 CO 53</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 22</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888999670" data-vids="888999670" class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">394 P.3d 1144, 1151</span></a></span> )</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="8130" data-sentence-id="8692" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> have generally determined this relief to be appropriate <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"when an appellate remedy would be inadequate, when <span class="ldml-entity">a party</span> may otherwise suffer irreparable harm, <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[or]</span> when a petition raises issues of significant public importance that <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> have not yet considered."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="8130" data-sentence-id="8952" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:inrethepeopleofthestateofcoloradovhuckabaycaseno20sa31463p3d283may18,2020" data-prop-ids="sentence_8692"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">People v. Huckabay</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">2020 CO 42</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_8692"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 9</span></a></span></span>, <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:inrethepeopleofthestateofcoloradovhuckabaycaseno20sa31463p3d283may18,2020"><span class="ldml-cite">463 P.3d 283, 285</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-referencenote">alteration in original</span>)</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-cert">quoting</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:inrethepeopleofthestateofcoloradovkilgorecaseno19sa191455p3d746january13,2020"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">People v. Kilgore</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">2020 CO 6</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 8</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:inrethepeopleofthestateofcoloradovkilgorecaseno19sa191455p3d746january13,2020"><span class="ldml-cite">455 P.3d 746, 748</span></a></span> )</span></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="9096" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="9096" data-sentence-id="9097" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_9097"><span class="ldml-cite">¶14</span></a></span> Hernandez argues that the exercise of original jurisdiction is appropriate in <span class="ldml-entity">this case</span> because <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> would be unable to challenge <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span>'s ruling</span> on immunity and his constitutional claims through direct appeal.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="9096" data-sentence-id="9319" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">He</span> further contends that because <span class="ldml-entity">this case</span> presents an issue of first impression arising out of the <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">COVID-19</span></a></span> pandemic, it constitutes an issue of significant public importance.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="9096" data-sentence-id="9496" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> agree.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="9505" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="9505" data-sentence-id="9505" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_9505"><span class="ldml-cite">¶15</span></a></span> First, <span class="ldml-entity">this court</span> has previously ruled that <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"denying immunity from <span class="ldml-entity">prosecution</span> under <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_9505"><span class="ldml-cite">section 18-1-704.5</span></a></span> may not be reviewed on appeal after trial."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="9505" data-sentence-id="9657" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/894742259" data-vids="894742259" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_9505"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Wood v. People</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">255 P.3d 1136, 1138</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">2011</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">see also</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/894742259" data-vids="894742259" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_9731,sentence_9505"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">id.</i> at 1142</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[T]</span>he proper avenue for seeking review of such a pretrial order is under <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_9505"><span class="ldml-cite">C.A.R. 21</span></a></span> ...."</span></span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="9505" data-sentence-id="9823" class="ldml-sentence">Second, this question is one of significant public importance due to the sweeping, constantly evolving nature of the <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">COVID-19</span></a></span> pandemic and its potential impact on <span class="ldml-entity">defendants</span>' constitutional rights in <span class="ldml-entity">trial court</span> proceedings across Colorado.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="10063" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="10063" data-sentence-id="10063" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_10063"><span class="ldml-cite">¶16</span></a></span> Accordingly, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> conclude that our exercise of jurisdiction over <span class="ldml-entity">this case</span> pursuant to <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">C.A.R. 21</span></a></span> is warranted.</span></p></div><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth2" data-ordinal_start="2" data-value="B. Witness Testimony Via Videoconferencing Technology at an MMD Hearing Does Not Violate Hernandez's Confrontation Right" data-specifier="B" data-ordinal_end="2" data-content-heading-label="B. Witness Testimony Via Videoconferencing Technology at an MMD Hearing Does Not Violate Hernandez's Confrontation Right" data-parsed="true" data-id="heading_10176" data-format="upper_case_letters" id="heading_10176"><span data-paragraph-id="10176" class="ldml-paragraph "><b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="10176" data-sentence-id="10176" class="ldml-sentence">B.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="10176" data-sentence-id="10179" class="ldml-sentence">Witness Testimony Via Videoconferencing Technology at an MMD Hearing Does Not Violate Hernandez's Confrontation Right</span></b></span></section><p data-paragraph-id="10296" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="10296" data-sentence-id="10297" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_10297"><span class="ldml-cite">¶17</span></a></span> Hernandez first contends that the use of videoconferencing technology at his MMD hearing violates his right to confront the witnesses against him, is impractical, and violates the spirit of <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_10297"><span class="ldml-cite">Crim. P. 43</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="10296" data-sentence-id="10504" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">He</span> argues that his right to confront the witnesses against him includes the right to have those witnesses appear in person at the MMD hearing.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="10296" data-sentence-id="10647" class="ldml-sentence">And, <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> argues, it would be illogical to conclude that <span class="ldml-entity">a defendant</span> could refuse to consent to the use of an interactive audiovisual device for an MMD hearing, but then allow witnesses to testify at the hearing using that same technology.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="10296" data-sentence-id="10885" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> disagree.</span></p><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth3" data-ordinal_start="1" data-value="1. Face-To-Face Confrontation Is Not Required" data-specifier="1" data-ordinal_end="1" data-content-heading-label="1. Face-To-Face Confrontation Is Not Required" data-parsed="true" data-id="heading_10897" data-format="number" id="heading_10897"><span data-paragraph-id="10897" class="ldml-paragraph "><b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="10897" data-sentence-id="10897" class="ldml-sentence">1.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="10897" data-sentence-id="10900" class="ldml-sentence">Face-To-Face Confrontation Is Not Required</span></b></span></section><p data-paragraph-id="10942" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="10942" data-sentence-id="10943" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_10943"><span class="ldml-cite">¶18</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">We</span> review a possible Confrontation Clause violation de novo.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="10942" data-sentence-id="11008" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/891984782" data-vids="891984782" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_10943"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Bernal v. People</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">44 P.3d 184, 198</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">2002</span>)</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="10942" data-sentence-id="11057" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-quotation quote">"One of the most basic of the rights guaranteed by the Confrontation Clause is the accused's right to be present in the courtroom at every stage of his trial."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="10942" data-sentence-id="11217" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/895314620" data-vids="895314620" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_11057"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Illinois v. Allen</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">397 U.S. 337, 338</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">90 S.Ct. 1057</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">25 L.Ed.2d 353</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1970</span>)</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="10942" data-sentence-id="11293" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-quotation quote">" <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_11293"><span class="ldml-cite">Crim. P. 43<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span></span></a></span> also requires as much, subject to a few exceptions."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="10942" data-sentence-id="11363" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:peoplevjanis,2018co89" data-prop-ids="sentence_11363"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">People v. Janis</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">2018 CO 89</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_11363"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 16</span></a></span></span> n.2, <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/892193177" data-vids="892193177" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_11363"><span class="ldml-cite">429 P.3d 1198, 1201 n.2</span></a></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="11426" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="11426" data-sentence-id="11427" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_11427"><span class="ldml-cite">¶19</span></a></span> The <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_11427"><span class="ldml-cite">Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">and</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_11427"><span class="ldml-cite">article II, section 16 of the Colorado Constitution</span></a></span></span></span> provide criminal <span class="ldml-entity">defendants</span> with the right to be confronted with the witnesses against them.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="11426" data-sentence-id="11634" class="ldml-sentence">The elements of the confrontation right—physical presence of the witness, testimony given under oath, cross-examination of the witness, and observation of the witness's demeanor—serve to <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"ensur<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[e]</span> that evidence admitted against an accused is reliable."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="11426" data-sentence-id="11887" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:marylandvcraig,497us836,---------,110sct3157,3167-70,111led2d66629massappct9401990" data-prop-ids="sentence_11634"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Maryland v. Craig</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">497 U.S. 836, 846</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">110 S.Ct. 3157</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">111 L.Ed.2d 666</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1990</span>)</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="11426" data-sentence-id="11965" class="ldml-sentence">While physical presence generally includes the right to confront a witness face-to-face at trial, the <span class="ldml-entity">United States Supreme Court</span> has indicated that this right is not absolute.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="11426" data-sentence-id="12142" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:marylandvcraig,497us836,---------,110sct3157,3167-70,111led2d66629massappct9401990" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_12175,sentence_11965"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">id.</i> at 847</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">110 S.Ct. 3157</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[W]</span>e have never insisted on an actual face-to-face encounter at trial in <i class="ldml-italics">every</i> <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-rep="P.3d" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-val="1061" data-vol="488" data-id="pagenumber_12255"></span> instance in which testimony is admitted against <span class="ldml-entity">a defendant</span>."</span></span>)</span></span></span><span data-paragraph-id="11426" data-sentence-id="12318" class="ldml-sentence">.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="12319" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="12319" data-sentence-id="12319" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_12319"><span class="ldml-cite">¶20</span></a></span> For instance, in <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:marylandvcraig,497us836,---------,110sct3157,3167-70,111led2d66629massappct9401990" data-prop-ids="sentence_12319"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Craig</i></span></a></span> , the <span class="ldml-entity">United States Supreme Court</span> held that child sexual abuse victims could testify through a one-way, closed-circuit television without violating <span class="ldml-entity">the defendant</span>'s confrontation right.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="12319" data-sentence-id="12531" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:marylandvcraig,497us836,---------,110sct3157,3167-70,111led2d66629massappct9401990" data-prop-ids="sentence_12319"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i> at 851-52</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">110 S.Ct. 3157</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="12319" data-sentence-id="12562" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The Court</span> reasoned that, while <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"the Confrontation Clause reflects a <i class="ldml-italics">preference</i> for face-to-face confrontation,"</span> <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:marylandvcraig,497us836,---------,110sct3157,3167-70,111led2d66629massappct9401990" data-prop-ids="sentence_12562"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">id.</i> at 849</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">110 S.Ct. 3157</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-cert">quoting</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/891892449" data-vids="891892449" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_12562"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Ohio v. Roberts</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">448 U.S. 56, 63</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">100 S.Ct. 2531</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">65 L.Ed.2d 597</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1980</span>)</span></a></span> )</span></span>, this preference <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"must occasionally give way to considerations of public policy and the necessities of <span class="ldml-entity">the case</span>,"</span> <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:marylandvcraig,497us836,---------,110sct3157,3167-70,111led2d66629massappct9401990" data-prop-ids="sentence_12562"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">id.</i> at 849</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">110 S.Ct. 3157</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-cert">quoting</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/890988686" data-vids="890988686" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_12562"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Mattox v. United States</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">156 U.S. 237, 243</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">15 S.Ct. 337</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">39 L.Ed. 409</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1895</span>)</span></a></span> )</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="12319" data-sentence-id="13015" class="ldml-sentence">And the right may be satisfied without face-to-face confrontation <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"where denial of such confrontation is necessary to further an important public policy"</span> and where the testimony's reliability is otherwise assured.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="12319" data-sentence-id="13229" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:marylandvcraig,497us836,---------,110sct3157,3167-70,111led2d66629massappct9401990" data-prop-ids="sentence_13015"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i> at 850</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">110 S.Ct. 3157</span></a></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="13256" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="13256" data-sentence-id="13256" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_13256"><span class="ldml-cite">¶21</span></a></span> Courts</span> have since construed <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:marylandvcraig,497us836,---------,110sct3157,3167-70,111led2d66629massappct9401990" data-prop-ids="sentence_13256"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Craig</i></span></a></span> to permit the use of live, two-way videoconference testimony at trial when an important public policy—such as health and safety—will be furthered.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="13256" data-sentence-id="13441" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See, e.g.</span>, </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/895569057" data-vids="895569057" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_13514,sentence_13256"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">United States v. Gigante</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">166 F.3d 75, 79-82</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">2d Cir.</span> <span class="ldml-date">1999</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">permitting a terminally ill witness to testify via two-way, closed-circuit television because it would have been unsafe for him to travel for the testimony</span>)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/894458338" data-vids="894458338" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_13775,sentence_13256"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">United States v. Donziger</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">Nos. 19-CR-561</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">11-CV-691</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">2020 WL 5152162, at *2</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">S.D.N.Y.</span> <span class="ldml-date">Aug. 31, 2020</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[T]</span>here is no question that limiting the spread of <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_13256"><span class="ldml-cite">COVID-19</span></a></span> and protecting at-risk individuals from exposure to the virus are critically important public policies."</span></span>)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888790019" data-vids="888790019" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_14038,sentence_13256"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Commonwealth v. Masa</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">No. 1981CR0307</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">2020 WL 4743019, at *2</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Mass. Super. Ct.</span> <span class="ldml-date">Aug. 10, 2020</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[A]</span>llowing <span class="ldml-entity">a prosecution</span> witness to testify during a criminal trial by two-way video conference ... does not violate <span class="ldml-entity">the defendant</span>'s right to confront the witnesses against them where doing so is necessary to protect the health or well-being of the witness ...."</span></span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="13256" data-sentence-id="14304" class="ldml-sentence">Evaluating whether the underlying goal of the confrontation right would still be achieved through videoconference testimony is crucial to this analysis.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="13256" data-sentence-id="14457" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/895569057" data-vids="895569057" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_14304"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Gigante</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">166 F.3d at 80</span></a></span></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="14486" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="14486" data-sentence-id="14486" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_14486"><span class="ldml-cite">¶22</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">These cases</span> specifically refer to confrontation at <i class="ldml-italics">trial.</i></span> <span data-paragraph-id="14486" data-sentence-id="14548" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">This court</span> has not expressly determined whether the confrontation right ever extends to pretrial hearings.<a href="#note-fr5" class="ldml-noteanchor" id="note-ref-fr5">5</a></span> <span data-paragraph-id="14486" data-sentence-id="14655" class="ldml-sentence">Although <span class="ldml-entity">the court of appeals</span> stated in <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/887651262" data-vids="887651262" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_14655"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">People v. Felder</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">129 P.3d 1072, 1073-74</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo. App.</span> <span class="ldml-date">2005</span>)</span></a></span>, that confrontation rights do not extend to pretrial proceedings, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> have not drawn such a bright-line rule.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="14862" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="14862" data-sentence-id="14863" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_14863"><span class="ldml-cite">¶23</span></a></span> Turning to <span class="ldml-entity">the facts before <span class="ldml-entity">us</span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> begin by recognizing that the immunity granted under the MMD <span class="ldml-entity">statute</span>, codified under <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_14863"><span class="ldml-cite">section 18-1-704.5</span></a></span>, is <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"analogous to a preliminary hearing,"</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/894742259" data-vids="894742259" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_14863"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Wood</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">255 P.3d at 1140</span></a></span>, because it is <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"designed to shield <span class="ldml-entity">parties</span> from the rigors of trial when the evidence shows the presence or absence of certain circumstances,"</span> <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/894742259" data-vids="894742259" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_14863"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">id.</i></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-cert">quoting</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/893443930" data-vids="893443930" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_14863"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">People v. Wood</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">230 P.3d 1223, 1225</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo. App.</span> <span class="ldml-date">2009</span>)</span></a></span> )</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="14862" data-sentence-id="15284" class="ldml-sentence">The determination of immunity under <span class="ldml-entity">this statute</span> is akin to a preliminary hearing because <span class="ldml-entity">the court</span> first conducts a hearing to determine whether the statutory conditions have been established and, if the conditions have not been established, the issues are then resolved at trial under a higher burden of proof.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="14862" data-sentence-id="15597" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/894742259" data-vids="894742259" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_15284"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i> at 1141</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">see also</span> <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-rep="P.3d" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-val="1062" data-vol="488" data-id="pagenumber_15620"></span> </i><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/890341917" data-vids="890341917" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_15673,sentence_15284"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">People v. Guenther</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">740 P.2d 971, 980</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">1987</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence"><span class="ldml-quotation quote">"A hearing to determine the applicability of <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_15284"><span class="ldml-cite">section 18-1-704.5<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(3)</span></span></a></span> ... is an ancillary proceeding in the nature of a <span class="ldml-entity">motion to dismiss</span>"</span> under <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_15284"><span class="ldml-cite">Crim. P. 12<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span></span></a></span> </span>)</span></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="15832" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="15832" data-sentence-id="15832" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_15832"><span class="ldml-cite">¶24</span></a></span> Here, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> need not decide if confrontation rights extend to MMD hearings, because <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> do not perceive that <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span>'s order permitting <span class="ldml-entity">the prosecution</span> to appear, and its witnesses to testify, live over a videoconference platform amounts to a violation of Hernandez's confrontation right under the circumstances in <span class="ldml-entity">this case</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="15832" data-sentence-id="16166" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The trial court</span> made detailed findings regarding the <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">COVID-19</span></a></span> public health crisis and adopted the findings set forth in Chief Judge Anderson's Administrative Order that <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span> <span class="ldml-entity">Adams County</span> was listed as having a <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"very high"</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">COVID-19</span></a></span> incident rate by the <span class="ldml-entity">Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment</span>, which was the highest in the Denver metropolitan area at the time; <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(2)</span> 243 of the County's hospital beds were then in use by confirmed or suspected <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">COVID-19</span></a></span> patients; and <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(3)</span> the mandatory, statewide mask order had been extended.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="16701" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="16701" data-sentence-id="16701" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_16701"><span class="ldml-cite">¶25</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">The trial court</span> also expressly noted that the denial of face-to-face confrontation, though not optimal, furthered the important public policy of <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"maintain<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[ing]</span> the safety of all <span class="ldml-entity">court</span> users,"</span> in light of the <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"health concerns related to C<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[OVID]</span>-19."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="16701" data-sentence-id="16954" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The trial court</span> concluded that requiring witnesses to appear in person presented a risk of contagion.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="17055" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="17055" data-sentence-id="17055" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_17055"><span class="ldml-cite">¶26</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">The trial court</span> also confirmed that the reliability of the testimony would be assured: It acknowledged that <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"conducting <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[an]</span> examination of a witness via audio visual device is not ideal,"</span> but noted that WebEx allowed for the sharing of documents and videos, and that <span class="ldml-entity">the court</span> would still be able to assess the credibility of the witnesses through live, but remote, testimony.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="17055" data-sentence-id="17437" class="ldml-sentence">As in <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:marylandvcraig,497us836,---------,110sct3157,3167-70,111led2d66629massappct9401990" data-prop-ids="sentence_17437"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Craig</i></span></a></span> , the witnesses would be under oath, defense <span class="ldml-entity">counsel</span> would be able to conduct live cross-examination, and all <span class="ldml-entity">parties</span> could observe the witnesses' demeanor.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="17055" data-sentence-id="17606" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-signal"><i class="ldml-italics">See</i></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:marylandvcraig,497us836,---------,110sct3157,3167-70,111led2d66629massappct9401990" data-prop-ids="sentence_17437"><span class="ldml-cite">497 U.S. at 846</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">110 S.Ct. 3157</span></a></span></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="17642" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="17642" data-sentence-id="17642" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_17642"><span class="ldml-cite">¶27</span></a></span> Under these specific circumstances, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> conclude that <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span> order permitting <span class="ldml-entity">the prosecution</span> to appear, and the witnesses to testify, at the MMD hearing via WebEx does not amount to a violation of Hernandez's confrontation right.</span></p></div><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth3" data-ordinal_start="2" data-value="2. The Spirit of Crim. P. 43 Is Not Violated" data-specifier="2" data-ordinal_end="2" data-content-heading-label="2. The Spirit of Crim. P. 43 Is Not Violated" data-parsed="true" data-id="heading_17884" data-format="number" id="heading_17884"><span data-paragraph-id="17884" class="ldml-paragraph "><b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="17884" data-sentence-id="17884" class="ldml-sentence">2.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="17884" data-sentence-id="17887" class="ldml-sentence">The Spirit of <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_17887"><span class="ldml-cite">Crim. P. 43</span></a></span> Is Not Violated</span></b></span></section><p data-paragraph-id="17928" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="17928" data-sentence-id="17929" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_17929"><span class="ldml-cite">¶28 Rule 43 of the Colorado Rules of Criminal Procedure</span></a></span> outlines when <span class="ldml-entity">a defendant</span>'s presence at criminal proceedings is required, when it is not, and when his or her presence may be waived.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="17928" data-sentence-id="18119" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-signal"><i class="ldml-italics">See</i></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_17929"><span class="ldml-cite">Crim. P. 43<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span>-<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(d)</span></span></a></span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="17928" data-sentence-id="18143" class="ldml-sentence">Specifically, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_18143"><span class="ldml-cite">Crim. P. 43<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(e)</span></span></a></span> governs when <span class="ldml-entity">a defendant</span> may appear by interactive audiovisual device and details the minimum standards that apply to the use of these devices, such as requiring that defense <span class="ldml-entity">counsel</span> appear in the same location as <span class="ldml-entity">the defendant</span>, upon <span class="ldml-entity">the defendant</span>'s request; that a separate, private line of communication between <span class="ldml-entity">the defendant</span> and <span class="ldml-entity">counsel</span> exist; that <span class="ldml-entity">the defendant</span> consents to appear using the audiovisual medium; that the public has access to, and the ability to observe, the hearing; and that <span class="ldml-entity">the defendant</span> and <span class="ldml-entity">the court</span> are able to electronically transfer documents to each other.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="18756" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="18756" data-sentence-id="18756" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_18756"><span class="ldml-cite">¶29</span></a></span> With the onset of the <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">COVID-19</span></a></span> pandemic, <span class="ldml-entity">this court</span> amended <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_18756"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 43</span></a></span> to include a <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"Public Health Crisis Exception."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="18756" data-sentence-id="18875" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-signal"><i class="ldml-italics">See</i></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_18756"><span class="ldml-cite">Crim. P. 43<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(f)</span></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:peopleofthestateofcoloradovlucy,2020co68" data-prop-ids="sentence_18756"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">People v. Lucy</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">2020 CO 68</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_18756"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 24</span></a></span></span> n.3, <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/895242863" data-vids="895242863" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_18957"><span class="ldml-cite">467 P.3d 332, 337 n.3</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[W]</span>e amended <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 43</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-quotation quote">‘Presence of <span class="ldml-entity">the Defendant</span>,’</span> by adding <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">paragraphs <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(f)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span> and <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(f)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(2)</span></span></a></span>, which authorize <span class="ldml-entity">trial courts</span>, in the event that <span class="ldml-quotation quote">‘a public health crisis’</span> exists and certain circumstances are present, to hold most proceedings by contemporaneous audio communication and/or interactive audiovisual device."</span></span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="18756" data-sentence-id="19274" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The amendment</span> permits <span class="ldml-entity">a defendant</span> to appear by <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"interactive audiovisual device or by audio device for any proceeding that does not involve a jury"</span> so long as <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> or <span class="ldml-entity">she</span> provides oral or written consent.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="18756" data-sentence-id="19476" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_19274"><span class="ldml-cite">Crim. P. 43<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(f)</span></span></a></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="19491" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="19491" data-sentence-id="19491" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_19491"><span class="ldml-cite">¶30</span></a></span> Hernandez urges <span class="ldml-entity">us</span> to interpret <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_19491"><span class="ldml-cite">Rule 43<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(f)</span></span></a></span> to mean that, because <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> did not consent to appearing by an interactive audiovisual device, the witnesses against him could not appear by this type of device.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="19491" data-sentence-id="19697" class="ldml-sentence">But that is not what the Rule says.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="19732" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="19732" data-sentence-id="19732" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_19732"><span class="ldml-cite">¶31</span></a></span> The plain language of <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_19732"><span class="ldml-cite">Crim. P. 43</span></a></span> is unambiguous.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="19732" data-sentence-id="19786" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> come to this conclusion by reading the unambiguous language of the <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-rep="P.3d" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-val="1063" data-vol="488" data-id="pagenumber_19856"></span> rule consistent with its plain and ordinary meaning and then applying it as written.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="19732" data-sentence-id="19942" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:inrethepeopleofthestateofcoloradovangelno12sa24277p3d231,2012co34may14,2012" data-prop-ids="sentence_19786"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">People v. Angel</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">2012 CO 34</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_19786"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 17</span></a></span></span>, <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:inrethepeopleofthestateofcoloradovangelno12sa24277p3d231,2012co34may14,2012"><span class="ldml-cite">277 P.3d 231, 235</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/895769804" data-vids="895769804" class="ldml-reference"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">People v. Corson</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">2016 CO 33</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 44</span></a></span></span>, <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/895769804" data-vids="895769804" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_20051"><span class="ldml-cite">379 P.3d 288, 297</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote">"To ascertain the appropriate construction of a rule of criminal procedure, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> employ the same interpretive rules applicable to statutory construction."</span></span> <span class="ldml-embeddedsentence"><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-cert">quoting</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/895417888" data-vids="895417888" class="ldml-reference"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Kazadi v. People</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">2012 CO 73</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 11</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/895417888" data-vids="895417888" class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">291 P.3d 16, 20</span></a></span> )</span>)</span></span></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="20269" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="20269" data-sentence-id="20269" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_20269"><span class="ldml-cite">¶32</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_20269"><span class="ldml-cite">Crim. P. 43</span></a></span> only addresses the presence of <span class="ldml-entity">the defendant</span> and his or her <span class="ldml-entity">counsel</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="20269" data-sentence-id="20354" class="ldml-sentence">The rule is silent as to the presence of witnesses.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="20269" data-sentence-id="20406" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-signal"><i class="ldml-italics">See</i></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_20354"><span class="ldml-cite">Crim. P. 43</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">see also</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:peoplevwardell,2020coa47" data-prop-ids="sentence_20354"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">People v. Wardell</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">2020 COA 47</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_20354"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 16</span></a></span></span>, <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/887032181" data-vids="887032181" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_20490"><span class="ldml-cite">474 P.3d 154, 159</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">(" <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_20605"><span class="ldml-cite">Crim. P. 43</span></a></span> ... enumerates stages of the criminal process at which <span class="ldml-entity">a <i class="ldml-italics">defendant</i></span> must be physically present ...."</span> <span class="ldml-embeddedsentence"><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-referencenote">emphasis added</span>)</span>)</span></span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="20269" data-sentence-id="20624" class="ldml-sentence">Thus, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> apply the rule as written and conclude that <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_20624"><span class="ldml-cite">Crim. P. 43</span></a></span> does not prohibit <span class="ldml-entity">a court</span> from allowing, over <span class="ldml-entity">a defendant</span>'s objection, <span class="ldml-entity">a prosecution</span> witness to appear by interactive video device during a public health crisis.</span></p></div></div><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth2" data-ordinal_start="3" data-value="C. Hernandez Waived His Public Trial Claim" data-specifier="C" data-ordinal_end="3" data-content-heading-label="C. Hernandez Waived His Public Trial Claim" data-parsed="true" data-id="heading_20850" data-format="upper_case_letters" id="heading_20850"><span data-paragraph-id="20850" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="20850" data-sentence-id="20850" class="ldml-sentence"><b class="ldml-bold">C. Hernandez Waived His Public Trial Claim</b></span></span></section><p data-paragraph-id="20892" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="20892" data-sentence-id="20893" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_20893"><span class="ldml-cite">¶33</span></a></span> Hernandez next contends that <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span>'s order allowing <span class="ldml-entity">the prosecution</span> to appear, and its witnesses to testify, via WebEx effectively constituted an unconstitutional closure of the courtroom.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="20892" data-sentence-id="21096" class="ldml-sentence">In Hernandez's view, the hybrid nature of the proceeding excludes the presence of the public in violation of his public trial right.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="21228" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="21228" data-sentence-id="21229" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_21229"><span class="ldml-cite">¶34</span></a></span> Criminal <span class="ldml-entity">defendants</span>, under both the <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_21229"><span class="ldml-cite">United States Constitution</span></a></span> and the <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_21229"><span class="ldml-cite">Colorado Constitution</span></a></span>, have a right to a public trial.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="21228" data-sentence-id="21359" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_21359"><span class="ldml-cite">U.S. Const. amends. VI</span></a></span>, XIV <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_21359"><span class="ldml-cite">Colo. Const. art. II, § 16</span></a></span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="21228" data-sentence-id="21417" class="ldml-sentence">This right <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"is for the benefit of the accused"</span> so that the public may ensure that <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> or <span class="ldml-entity">she</span> <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"is fairly dealt with and not unjustly condemned."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="21228" data-sentence-id="21560" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:peoplevjones,2020co45" data-prop-ids="sentence_21417"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">People v. Jones</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">2020 CO 45</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_21417"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 16</span></a></span></span>, <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/892266641" data-vids="892266641" class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">464 P.3d 735, 739</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-cert">quoting</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/895097343" data-vids="895097343" class="ldml-reference"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Waller v. Georgia</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">467 U.S. 39, 46</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">104 S.Ct. 2210</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">81 L.Ed.2d 31</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1984</span>)</span></a></span> )</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="21228" data-sentence-id="21698" class="ldml-sentence">The <span class="ldml-entity">United States Supreme Court</span> has extended this right to include pretrial proceedings.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="21228" data-sentence-id="21787" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/895097343" data-vids="895097343" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_21827,sentence_21698"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Waller</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">467 U.S. at 47</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">104 S.Ct. 2210</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">concluding that the <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_21698"><span class="ldml-cite">Sixth Amendment</span></a></span> public trial right extends to suppression hearings</span>)</span></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="21915" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="21915" data-sentence-id="21915" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_21915"><span class="ldml-cite">¶35</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">The People</span> argue, and Hernandez concedes, that Hernandez did not raise this argument below.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="21915" data-sentence-id="22011" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> agree and conclude that Hernandez waived this claim.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="21915" data-sentence-id="22067" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/893696321" data-vids="893696321" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_22011"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Martinez v. People</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">2015 CO 16</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_22011"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 14</span></a></span></span>, <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/893696321" data-vids="893696321" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_22129"><span class="ldml-cite">344 P.3d 862, 868</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">"A general objection will not suffice.</span> <span class="ldml-embeddedsentence"><span class="ldml-entity">Parties</span> must make objections that are specific enough to draw <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span>'s attention to the asserted error."</span></span> <span class="ldml-embeddedsentence"><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-referencenote">citation omitted</span>)</span>)</span></span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">see also</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/893762345" data-vids="893762345" class="ldml-reference"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Stackhouse v. People</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">2015 CO 48</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 17</span></a></span></span>, <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/893762345" data-vids="893762345" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_22372"><span class="ldml-cite">386 P.3d 440, 446</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">"<span class="ldml-entity">Defendants</span> in Colorado affirmatively waive their right to public trial by not objecting to known closures."</span></span>)</span></span></span><span data-paragraph-id="21915" data-sentence-id="22481" class="ldml-sentence">.</span></p></div><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth2" data-ordinal_start="4" data-value="D. Hernandez Has Not Been Denied Equal Protection" data-specifier="D" data-ordinal_end="4" data-content-heading-label="D. Hernandez Has Not Been Denied Equal Protection" data-parsed="true" data-id="heading_22482" data-format="upper_case_letters" id="heading_22482"><span data-paragraph-id="22482" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="22482" data-sentence-id="22482" class="ldml-sentence"><b class="ldml-bold">D. Hernandez Has Not Been Denied Equal Protection</b></span></span></section><p data-paragraph-id="22531" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="22531" data-sentence-id="22532" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_22532"><span class="ldml-cite">¶36</span></a></span> Finally, Hernandez argues that <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> was subject to disparate treatment because his case was assigned to, what <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> asserts was, the only division in the <span class="ldml-entity">Seventeenth Judicial District</span> conducting virtual, rather than fully in-person, hearings.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="22531" data-sentence-id="22774" class="ldml-sentence">Hernandez contends that <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> was denied his confrontation right due to the assignment of his case to this division and that similarly situated <span class="ldml-entity">defendants</span> were not so deprived.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="22531" data-sentence-id="22948" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> find Hernandez's argument that <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> has an equal protection right to have his case assigned—or not assigned—to any particular division without merit.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="23098" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="23098" data-sentence-id="23099" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_23099"><span class="ldml-cite">¶37</span></a></span> Under the Equal Protection Clause, no state shall <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="23098" data-sentence-id="23232" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_23099"><span class="ldml-cite">U.S. Const. amend. XIV</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">§ 1</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="23098" data-sentence-id="23261" class="ldml-sentence">While the <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_23261"><span class="ldml-cite">Colorado Constitution</span></a></span> does not contain a separate equal protection clause, <span class="ldml-entity">this court</span> has construed <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_23261"><span class="ldml-cite">article II, section 25 of the Colorado Constitution</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"to imply a similar guarantee."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="23098" data-sentence-id="23455" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:deanvpeople,2016co14" data-prop-ids="sentence_23261"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Dean v. People</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">2016 CO 14</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_23261"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 11</span></a></span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/891947016" data-vids="891947016" class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">366 P.3d 593, 596</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="23098" data-sentence-id="23508" class="ldml-sentence">Equal protection ensures <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"the like treatment of all persons who are similarly situated."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="23098" data-sentence-id="23597" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/891947016" data-vids="891947016" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_23508"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="23098" data-sentence-id="23601" class="ldml-sentence">Therefore, the threshold question is whether the class of persons are similarly situated.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="23098" data-sentence-id="23691" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/892242132" data-vids="892242132" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_23601"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">People v. Young</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">859 P.2d 814, 816</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">1993</span>)</span></a></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="23739" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="23739" data-sentence-id="23740" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_23740"><span class="ldml-cite">¶38</span></a></span> The level of judicial scrutiny applied when <span class="ldml-entity">a defendant</span> raises an equal protection challenge depends on the type of classification identified and the nature of the right affected.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="23739" data-sentence-id="23924" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:deanvpeople,2016co14" data-prop-ids="sentence_23740"><span class="ldml-refname">Dean</span></a></span>,</i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_23740"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 12</span></a></span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/891947016" data-vids="891947016" class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">366 P.3d at 597</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="23739" data-sentence-id="23953" class="ldml-sentence">Where no suspect class is identified and no fundamental right is at issue, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> apply a <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-rep="P.3d" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-val="1064" data-vol="488" data-id="pagenumber_24039"></span> rational basis standard of review.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="23739" data-sentence-id="24075" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/893618997" data-vids="893618997" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_23953"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">People v. Diaz</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">2015 CO 28</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_23953"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 25</span></a></span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/893618997" data-vids="893618997" class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">347 P.3d 621, 626-27</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="23739" data-sentence-id="24131" class="ldml-sentence">This standard requires proof <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"beyond a reasonable doubt that the classification bears no rational relationship to a legitimate legislative purpose or government objective"</span> or that the classification is <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="23739" data-sentence-id="24375" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/893618997" data-vids="893618997" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_24375"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span> at <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_24375"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 25</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/893618997" data-vids="893618997" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_24375"><span class="ldml-cite">347 P.3d at 627</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="23739" data-sentence-id="24405" class="ldml-sentence">To establish a violation, the classification must <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"arbitrarily single out a group of persons for disparate treatment,"</span> without singling out others who are similarly situated.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="23739" data-sentence-id="24580" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/893373568" data-vids="893373568" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_24405"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Indus. Claim Appeals Off. v. Romero</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">912 P.2d 62, 66</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">1996</span>)</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="23739" data-sentence-id="24647" class="ldml-sentence">However, <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[i]</span>f any conceivable set of facts would lead to the conclusion that a classification serves a legitimate purpose, <span class="ldml-entity">a court</span> must assume those facts exist."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="23739" data-sentence-id="24811" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/893373568" data-vids="893373568" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_24647"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i> at 67</span></a></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="24821" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="24821" data-sentence-id="24821" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_24821"><span class="ldml-cite">¶39</span></a></span> Hernandez does not identify a specific <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"similarly situated"</span> group that is subject to disparate treatment.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="24821" data-sentence-id="24931" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/893373568" data-vids="893373568" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_24947,sentence_24821"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">id.</i> at 66</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence"><span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[D]</span>issimilar treatment of similarly situated individuals"</span> is a <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"threshold issue"</span></span>)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">see also</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/893724087" data-vids="893724087" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_25092,sentence_24821"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">People v. Black</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">915 P.2d 1257, 1260</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">1996</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">"An equal protection challenge must fail if persons alleging disparate treatment are not similarly situated."</span></span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="24821" data-sentence-id="25204" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> understand Hernandez, based on the context of his argument, to define the class at issue here as individuals facing criminal <span class="ldml-entity">prosecution</span> in the <span class="ldml-entity">Seventeenth Judicial District</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="24821" data-sentence-id="25382" class="ldml-sentence">The disparate treatment would then be the assignment of his case to Judge Crespin's division where hearings were proceeding, in whole or in part, via WebEx.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="25538" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="25538" data-sentence-id="25538" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_25538"><span class="ldml-cite">¶40</span></a></span> Because Hernandez did not identify a suspect class, and because <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> do not conclude that <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span> violated Hernandez's fundamental rights, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> apply the rational basis standard of review.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="25538" data-sentence-id="25735" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </i> <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/893618997" data-vids="893618997" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_25538"><span class="ldml-refname">Diaz</span></a></span>,</i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_25538"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 25</span></a></span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/893618997" data-vids="893618997" class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">347 P.3d at 627</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="25538" data-sentence-id="25769" class="ldml-sentence">In doing so, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> conclude that <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span>'s order allowing <span class="ldml-entity">the prosecution</span> to appear, and its witnesses to testify, in the MMD hearing via videoconference technology, with the safeguards contemplated by <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_25769"><span class="ldml-cite">Crim. P. 43</span></a></span>, was rationally related to concerns regarding the spread of <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">COVID-19</span></a></span> given the specific, ongoing public health crises in the <span class="ldml-entity">Seventeenth Judicial District</span> at the time <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span> made its detailed findings.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="26198" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="26198" data-sentence-id="26198" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_26198"><span class="ldml-cite">¶41</span></a></span> This alleged disparate treatment arose due to the <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">COVID-19</span></a></span> public health crisis.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="26198" data-sentence-id="26283" class="ldml-sentence">Chief Judge Anderson's various administrative orders regarding <span class="ldml-entity">court</span> operations under <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">COVID-19</span></a></span> provided judges in the <span class="ldml-entity">Seventeenth Judicial District</span> with direction and discretion regarding how to conduct proceedings—virtually or otherwise—in light of the dangers posed by <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">COVID-19</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="26198" data-sentence-id="26564" class="ldml-sentence">Any judge in the <span class="ldml-entity">Seventeenth Judicial District</span> could have determined, within his or her discretion, to proceed using videoconferencing technology, so long as his or her determination was otherwise within the bounds of the law.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="26198" data-sentence-id="26791" class="ldml-sentence">Hernandez's assertion that some judges did not use this technology to conduct proceedings is wholly immaterial because the overarching purpose of allowing virtual proceedings was to <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"slow the spread of disease"</span> and <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"reduce the risk of exposure"</span> during a public health emergency.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="26198" data-sentence-id="27070" class="ldml-sentence">Allowing the use of this technology under <span class="ldml-entity">these circumstances</span> serves a legitimate government objective.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="26198" data-sentence-id="27174" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/893618997" data-vids="893618997" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_27070"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Diaz</i></span></a></span> , <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_27070"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 25</span></a></span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/893618997" data-vids="893618997" class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">347 P.3d at 627</span></a></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="27208" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="27208" data-sentence-id="27208" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_27208"><span class="ldml-cite">¶42</span></a></span> Here, the discretionary use of videoconferencing technology for <span class="ldml-entity">court</span> proceedings during the <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">COVID-19</span></a></span> pandemic is rationally related to the important government objective of maintaining public health and reducing the spread of <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">COVID-19</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="27208" data-sentence-id="27449" class="ldml-sentence">Moreover, the assignment of criminal <span class="ldml-entity">cases</span> to different judges, notwithstanding the public health crisis, serves to manage the workload of judges and promote judicial economy.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="27208" data-sentence-id="27625" class="ldml-sentence">Because of the nature of this system, there will always necessarily be differences in how various judges manage their respective courtrooms and dockets.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="27777" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="27777" data-sentence-id="27777" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_27777"><span class="ldml-cite">¶43</span></a></span> For these reasons, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> determine that <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span> did not violate Hernandez's equal protection rights by ordering that <span class="ldml-entity">the prosecution</span> could appear, and its witnesses could testify, via videoconference technology, even if other judicial officers were conducting in-person hearings.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="27777" data-sentence-id="28066" class="ldml-sentence">The decision to proceed in this manner was rationally related to the objective of reducing exposure to, and the spread of, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">COVID-19</span></a></span>.</span></p></div></div><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-ordinal_start="3" data-value="III. Conclusion" data-specifier="III" data-ordinal_end="3" data-types="conclusion" data-content-heading-label="III. Conclusion" data-parsed="true" data-id="heading_28198" data-format="upper_case_roman_numeral" data-confidences="very_high" id="heading_28198"><span data-paragraph-id="28198" class="ldml-paragraph "><b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="28198" data-sentence-id="28198" class="ldml-sentence">III.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="28198" data-sentence-id="28203" class="ldml-sentence">Conclusion</span></b></span></section><p data-paragraph-id="28213" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="28213" data-sentence-id="28213" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_28213"><span class="ldml-cite">¶44</span></a></span> The <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">COVID-19</span></a></span> pandemic has presented innumerable challenges to the important <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-rep="P.3d" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-val="1065" data-vol="488" data-id="pagenumber_28293"></span> work of <span class="ldml-entity">trial courts</span> throughout Colorado.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="28213" data-sentence-id="28336" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">Courts</span> from Alamosa to Sterling to Grand Junction and beyond have had to quickly adapt to the ever-evolving nature of this public health crisis in order to find ways to continue <span class="ldml-entity">the court</span>'s business.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="28213" data-sentence-id="28536" class="ldml-sentence">As it relates to criminal <span class="ldml-entity">cases</span>, this has required thoughtful and careful consideration of how best to protect the many and varied users of our <span class="ldml-entity">courts</span>—litigants, attorneys, jurors, <span class="ldml-entity">defendants</span>, witnesses, victims, <span class="ldml-entity">court</span> staff, probation officers, and many others—from the spread of <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">COVID-19</span></a></span>, while continuing to hear as many <span class="ldml-entity">cases</span> as possible in a manner that safeguards <span class="ldml-entity">defendants</span>' constitutional rights.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="28940" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="28940" data-sentence-id="28940" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_28940"><span class="ldml-cite">¶45</span></a></span> Here, <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span> properly considered Hernandez's rights while thoughtfully adjusting procedures based on <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_28940"><span class="ldml-cite">Crim. P. 43</span></a></span> and the Chief Judge's Administrative Order so as to protect the health and safety of those appearing before it and—in turn—the community at large.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="28940" data-sentence-id="29213" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> hold that <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span> did not violate Hernandez's confrontation or equal protection rights by allowing <span class="ldml-entity">the prosecution</span> to appear, and its witnesses to testify, via a videoconferencing platform at his MMD hearing under these specific circumstances.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="28940" data-sentence-id="29468" class="ldml-sentence">Accordingly, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> discharge the rule to show cause.</span></p></div></div><div class="ldml-notes content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-content-heading-label="Footnotes"><div class="ldml-note ldml-note"><p data-paragraph-id="29517" class="ldml-paragraph "><sup class="ldml-superscript"></sup><a href="#note-ref-fr1" class="ldml-notemarker" id="note-fr1">1</a> <span data-paragraph-id="29517" data-sentence-id="29518" class="ldml-sentence">Technology changes quickly, and the language used to describe it changes even more quickly.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="29517" data-sentence-id="29610" class="ldml-sentence">Here, <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span> authorized <span class="ldml-entity">the prosecution</span> and the witnesses to appear remotely by WebEx, which is an online videoconferencing platform that allows participants to virtually connect into <span class="ldml-entity">court</span> proceedings with video and audio via the internet.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="29517" data-sentence-id="29860" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The parties</span> variously refer to the technology at issue as <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"WebEx,"</span> <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"interactive audiovisual device,"</span> <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"video conferencing technology,"</span> and <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"remote video."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="29517" data-sentence-id="30014" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> refer more generically throughout this opinion to this type of technology as <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"videoconferencing technology"</span> and to testimony at issue here occurring over a <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"videoconferencing platform."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="29517" data-sentence-id="30203" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_30203"><span class="ldml-cite">Crim. P. 43</span></a></span> refers to an <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"interactive audiovisual device."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="29517" data-sentence-id="30262" class="ldml-sentence">All of the various terms and phrases used here are simply different ways to describe interactive audiovisual devices.</span></p></div><div class="ldml-note ldml-note"><p data-paragraph-id="30379" class="ldml-paragraph "><sup class="ldml-superscript"></sup><a href="#note-ref-fr2" class="ldml-notemarker" id="note-fr2">2</a> <span data-paragraph-id="30379" data-sentence-id="30380" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See, e.g.</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-refname">Chief Judge Order 2020-04 Finding Public Health Concerns Due to</span> <span class="ldml-cite">COVID-19</span></a></span></span> Preclude the Calling of Jurors for Jury Trials Scheduled Between Now and <span class="ldml-entity">May 31, 2020</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(amended <span class="ldml-entity">Jan. 2021</span>)</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-relatingauthority">explaining</span> that Chief Judge <span class="ldml-entity">Michael Martinez</span>, <span class="ldml-entity">Second Judicial District</span>, in <span class="ldml-entity">April 2020</span>, halted jury trials and juror summons)</span>; WebEx Procedures For the <span class="ldml-entity">Ninth Judicial District</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-relatingauthority">explaining</span> that Chief Judge <span class="ldml-entity">James Boyd</span>, <span class="ldml-entity">Ninth Judicial District</span>, ordered that <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"all dockets and hearings shall be conducted electronically"</span> via WebEx, as of <span class="ldml-entity">May 14, 2020</span>)</span>.</span></p></div><div class="ldml-note ldml-note"><p data-paragraph-id="30917" class="ldml-paragraph "><sup class="ldml-superscript"></sup><a href="#note-ref-fr3" class="ldml-notemarker" id="note-fr3">3</a> <span data-paragraph-id="30917" data-sentence-id="30918" class="ldml-sentence">The term <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"remotely"</span> refers to <span class="ldml-entity">a court</span> proceeding conducted from <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"a remote location,"</span> which generally requires the use of some form of videoconferencing technology.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="30917" data-sentence-id="31082" class="ldml-sentence"><i class="ldml-italics">Remotely,</i> Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/<i class="ldml-italics">remotely</i> ; <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[https://perma.cc/L3PT-X7HC]</span>.</span></p></div><div class="ldml-note ldml-note"><p data-paragraph-id="31210" class="ldml-paragraph "><sup class="ldml-superscript"></sup><a href="#note-ref-fr4" class="ldml-notemarker" id="note-fr4">4</a> <span data-paragraph-id="31210" data-sentence-id="31211" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> use <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"hybrid"</span> to refer to a hearing in which some participants appear in person in the courtroom and some appear live <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"remotely"</span> or <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"virtually"</span> via videoconference technology.</span></p></div><div class="ldml-note ldml-note"><p data-paragraph-id="31388" class="ldml-paragraph "><sup class="ldml-superscript"></sup><a href="#note-ref-fr5" class="ldml-notemarker" id="note-fr5">5</a> <span data-paragraph-id="31388" data-sentence-id="31389" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> have noted that <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"the right to confrontation is a trial right,"</span> but have not explicitly confined it to such a purpose.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="31388" data-sentence-id="31510" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:intheinterestofegcaseno15sc298368p3d946april18,2016" data-prop-ids="sentence_31389"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">People in Interest of E.G.</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">2016 CO 19</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_31389"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 28</span></a></span></span>, <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:intheinterestofegcaseno15sc298368p3d946april18,2016"><span class="ldml-cite">368 P.3d 946, 953</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-cert">quoting</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888228627" data-vids="888228627" class="ldml-reference"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">People v. Spykstra</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">234 P.3d 662, 670</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">2010</span>)</span></a></span> )</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="31388" data-sentence-id="31642" class="ldml-sentence">Other jurisdictions have limited the scope of the confrontation right to trial.</span> <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span data-paragraph-id="31388" data-sentence-id="31722" class="ldml-sentence"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See, e.g.</span>, </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/887048459" data-vids="887048459" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_31795"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">State v. Zamzow</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">374 Wis.2d 220</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">892 N.W.2d 637, 646</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2017</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[T]</span>he Confrontation Clause does not apply during suppression hearings. ...</span> <span class="ldml-embeddedsentence"><span class="ldml-parenthetical">[It]</span> protects <span class="ldml-entity">defendants</span> at trial ...."</span></span>)</span></span><span data-paragraph-id="31388" data-sentence-id="31911" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888206336" data-vids="888206336" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_31968"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">State v. Daly</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">278 Neb. 903</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">775 N.W.2d 47, 66</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2009</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[I]</span>t is well established that Confrontation Clause rights are trial rights that do not extend to pretrial hearings in state proceedings."</span></span>)</span></span><span data-paragraph-id="31388" data-sentence-id="32107" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/891501166" data-vids="891501166" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_32164"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">State v. Woinarowicz</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">720 N.W.2d 635, 641</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">N.D.</span> <span class="ldml-date">2006</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">concluding that <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888766637" data-vids="888766637" class="ldml-reference"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Crawford v. Washington</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">541 U.S. 36</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">124 S.Ct. 1354</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">158 L.Ed.2d 177</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2004</span>)</span></a></span>, did not intend to apply the confrontation right to pretrial hearings because <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[t]</span>he <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">Sixth Amendment</span></a></span> right to confrontation is a trial right"</span></span>)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/893341852" data-vids="893341852" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_32458"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Vanmeter v. State</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">165 S.W.3d 68, 73-74</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Tex. App.</span> <span class="ldml-date">2005</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">determining that <span class="ldml-entity">the defendant</span> need not <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"be afforded the full panoply of trial rights at the <span class="ldml-entity">motion to suppress hearing</span>"</span></span>)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:utahvtimmermanno20080206218p3d590,2009ut58september4,2009" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_32632"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">State v. Timmerman</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">218 P.3d 590, 594</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Utah</span> <span class="ldml-date">2009</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[W]</span>e hold that the federal Confrontation Clause does not apply to preliminary hearings."</span></span>)</span></span></span><span data-paragraph-id="31388" data-sentence-id="32722" class="ldml-sentence">.</span></p></div></div></div></div>
</div>
</div>