El Paso County District Court No. 12CR468. Honorable Barney Iuppa, Judge.
Daniel May, District Attorney, Robyn Cafasso, Chief Deputy District Attorney, Alan Anderson, Deputy District Attorney, Doyle Baker, Deputy District Attorney, Colorado Springs, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C., Norman R. Mueller, Denver, Colorado, for Defendant-Appellee.
[¶1] A grand jury indicted Raymond L. Marshall, the defendant here, in November 2009. The indictment alleged that he had committed a series of theft- and fraud-related crimes.
[¶2] In February 2012, the prosecution filed a second case by information that contained numerous similar counts. The prosecution moved to join the two cases. But defendant objected, and the court denied the prosecution's motion.
[¶3] A jury acquitted defendant in the first case. He then asked the court to dismiss the second case because the charges in that case should have been joined with the first case. The court agreed with defendant's argument and granted his request.
[¶4] This appeal asks this question: Does defendant's successful objection to the prosecution's motion to join the two cases bar defendant's subsequent motion to dismiss the second case because it was not joined with the first? We conclude, under the circumstances of this case, that the answer to this question is " yes." As a result, we reverse the trial court's judgment dismissing this case, and we remand it to the trial court to reinstate the charges.
[¶5] In the first case, a grand jury indicted defendant for securities fraud, theft, conspiracy, and organized crime. These charges involved transactions between defendant and an investor. The trial court later dismissed the organized crime charges.
[¶6] In March 2011, while the first case was pending trial, the prosecution received a tip
that led it to open a second investigation into defendant's business activities. It informed defendant's counsel of this investigation in July 2011, stating that it intended to file new charges against defendant.
[¶7] In September 2011, the prosecution filed a motion to continue defendant's trial. This motion stated that a prosecution expert and one of the prosecutors had encountered serious health problems. But it also referred to the new investigation, stating that the prosecutors' " goal" was to " complete the investigation and make a charging decision" within ninety days. The motion alleged that, if the court denied the request for a continuance, " the new and ongoing investigation and any subsequent filing of charges will be delayed."
[¶8] During a hearing on this motion, the prosecution stated that it would take time to file the new charges because it had to sort through the records of about 80 limited liability companies (LLCs) and 100 bank accounts that defendant controlled. The court granted the ...