In a published opinion issued Thursday, a unanimous three-judge panel held that the Office of the State Public Defender's core function of defending criminal defendants falls outside the statute's scope, which centers on law enforcement activities such as investigation and prosecution.
"As OSPD points out, the definition includes activities directly relating to 'prosecution' of criminal offenders, but not to their 'defense,'" Judge Katharine E. Lum wrote for the panel in reversing the lower court's judgment.
The dispute arose after Eric St. George requested records reflecting the office's policy governing whether attorneys may provide discovery materials to clients held in pretrial detention in Jefferson County, according to the opinion.
After he did not receive a substantive response, St. George sought an order compelling disclosure and statutory penalties under the records law.
A district court determined the office had improperly denied access to the requested policy and awarded $13,650 in penalties, finding the office qualified as a criminal justice agency under the statute.
On appeal, however, the panel concluded the statutory definition does not encompass the public defender's work, even though attorneys review investigative materials and criminal records while representing clients.
"The plain and ordinary meaning of the phrase 'detection or investigation of crime' conjures images of police or police-like officials conducting typical police functions," the panel said, emphasizing that the statutory language points to law enforcement activity rather than defense representation.
The panel also pointed to the structure of the records law, noting that one provision separately lists the public defender's office alongside criminal justice agencies when identifying entities that may receive unredacted records involving child victims and witnesses.
"If OSPD is a criminal justice agency, separately naming it serves no purpose," the opinion says.
The panel further relied on legislative history, noting the statute once included agencies performing activities related to the "defense" of criminal defendants, but lawmakers removed that language in a 1981 amendment while retaining references to prosecution and other law enforcement functions.
"This revision clearly evinces an intent to exclude agencies — like OSPD — whose function is to defend criminal defendants," the court wrote.
The panel also rejected the office's argument that the judgment should be vacated for lack of personal jurisdiction based on allegedly improper service, concluding the defense was waived because the office participated in the litigation without timely seeking dismissal.
The Colorado Attorney General's Office, counsel for the Office of the State Public Defender, declined to comment.
Representatives for the plaintiff did not immediately respond to a request for comment Friday.
Judges Katharine E. Lum, Jerry N. Jones and Melissa C. Meirink sat on the panel.
Eric St. George is represented by Thomas B. Kelley, Reid Allison and Madison Schaefer of Killmer Lane LLP.
The Office of the State Public Defender is represented by Colorado Attorney General Philip J. Weiser and Scott A. Schultz and Sarah Quigley of the Colorado Attorney General's Office.
The case is Eric St. George v. Office of the State Public Defender, case number 25CA0380, in the Colorado Court of Appeals.
--Editing by Marygrace Anderson.
For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.
