Found Deceased CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee Co, 10 May 2020 *Case dismissed w prejudice* #104

[Pyrite]

IMO, defense counsel is good at asking for things. Doesn't mean she's going to get what she asks for. Actually, more like demanding things. JMO

I’m wondering if legally, with the case dismissed but can be brought again, can BM’s property that was seized and is considered evidence, be held forever?

 

[Ontario Mom]

IMO . I believe the murder case has been reopened as of 8/16/2022. Is that possible without the public knowing?

Where did this info come from?

 

[crhedBngr]

Where did this info come from?

View attachment 364721

Colorado Judicial Branch - Court Docket Search

 

[Seattle1]

View attachment 364721

Colorado Judicial Branch - Court Docket Search

Thanks, @crhedBngr for the docket screen -- I think OP was asking about the random 8/16/2022 date.

 

[Nikynoo]

IMO . I believe the murder case has been reopened as of 8/16/2022. Is that possible without the public knowing?

Can you please clarify? As far as I am aware, the (LE) 'case' was never closed as they were still actively searching for Suzanne?

 

[Nikynoo]

View attachment 364721

Colorado Judicial Branch - Court Docket Search

there is nothing coming up for me and the attachment link is not working

 

[Seattle1]

there is nothing coming up for me and the attachment link is not working

It's the docket that was first posted by @MassGuy -- hearing 10/25/22 at 3 PM

Anyone seen this hearing before?

 

[Seattle1]

Docket for: Fremont County - Fremont Combined Court
Showing 1 - 1 of 1 records

Date​	Len​	Appearance​	Name​	Hearing Type​	Case #​	Location​	Division​
10/25/22 3:00 PM​	1Hr​	IN PERSON​	MORPHEW, BARRY​	Hearing​	D222022CR47​	Fremont County​	Division 6

Docket Search | Colorado Judicial Branch

www.courts.state.co.us

 

[Nikynoo]

Docket for: Fremont County - Fremont Combined Court
Showing 1 - 1 of 1 records

​

Date​	Len​	Appearance​	Name​	Hearing Type​	Case #​	Location​	Division​
10/25/22 3:00 PM​	1Hr​	IN PERSON​	MORPHEW, BARRY​	Hearing​	D222022CR47​	Fremont County​	Division 6

Docket Search | Colorado Judicial Branch

www.courts.state.co.us

Thanks!
Its not the voter Fraud as that has been dealt with in Chaffee. Is it to do with the hunting stuff?

 

[Seattle1]

Thanks!
Its not the voter Fraud as that has been dealt with in Chaffee. Is it to do with the hunting stuff?

Both the County jurisdiction and the case number represent the dismissed murder case. IMO, if this was about BM's probation affecting his loss of gun privileges (hunting), the hearing would be heard in Chaffee County.

The hearing is not defined on the docket so my best guess is there might be some evidence seized that BM wants to retrieve. For example, I recall earlier complaints about electronics seized from the residence (cellular phones, ipads, computers, etc) but when asked to specifically identify them, the defense did not follow through. JMO

 

[Nikynoo]

Both the County jurisdiction and the case number represent the dismissed murder case. IMO, if this was about BM's probation affecting his loss of gun privileges (hunting), the hearing would be heard in Chaffee County.

The hearing is not defined on the docket so my best guess is there might be some evidence seized that BM wants to retrieve. For example, I recall earlier complaints about electronics seized from the residence (cellular phones, ipads, computers, etc) but when asked to specifically identify them, the defense did not follow through. JMO

Thank you!

 

[California Dreamin’]

Both the County jurisdiction and the case number represent the dismissed murder case. IMO, if this was about BM's probation affecting his loss of gun privileges (hunting), the hearing would be heard in Chaffee County.

The hearing is not defined on the docket so my best guess is there might be some evidence seized that BM wants to retrieve. For example, I recall earlier complaints about electronics seized from the residence (cellular phones, ipads, computers, etc) but when asked to specifically identify them, the defense did not follow through. JMO

Now, those items were confiscated early on and remained in LE’s possession while they continued to investigate SM’s “disappearance.” Since the case was dismissed ”without prejudice” and the case continues to be under investigation (with BM as their prime suspect), are LE not within their right to to keep those items as they continue to investigate? Just curious as I’m not familiar with protocol re: returning items once the data has been retrieved. Thanks!

 

[legalmomma]

Now, those items were confiscated early on and remained in LE’s possession while they continued to investigate SM’s “disappearance.” Since the case was dismissed ”without prejudice” and the case continues to be under investigation (with BM as their prime suspect), are LE not within their right to to keep those items as they continue to investigate? Just curious as I’m not familiar with protocol re: returning items once the data has been retrieved. Thanks!

I was thinking the same thing...the case was dismissed w/o prejudice so it can be refiled. It technically is under investigation still (remember they are searching once the snow melts (!) ) so I found this:

The State of Colorado Law On The Return Of Evidence​

The law in Colorado is not crystal clear in this area – but what follows is my analysis of the relevant factors.

The basic rule – return the property!

When the need for property seized in a case has ended, the trial court has the jurisdiction and the obligation to order its return and, if necessary, to conduct a hearing to determine its appropriate disposition and any ancillary issues.
People v. Rautenkranz, 641 P.2d 317, 318 (Colo. App. 1982).

If a Defendant can make out a bare bones claim (called a prima facie case) that evidence of a seizure of personal property occurred and that the Defendant is the owner of that property, then the burden of proof shifts to the State to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the items seized were the fruit of an illegal activity or that a connection exists between those items and criminal activity.
---------------

Maybe we will see an actual hearing on the issues of why the State still needs to hold the evidence if indeed that is what the October 25th hearing is about. But its only slated for one hour....

 

[Seattle1]

Now, those items were confiscated early on and remained in LE’s possession while they continued to investigate SM’s “disappearance.” Since the case was dismissed ”without prejudice” and the case continues to be under investigation (with BM as their prime suspect), are LE not within their right to to keep those items as they continue to investigate? Just curious as I’m not familiar with protocol re: returning items once the data has been retrieved. Thanks!

IMO, if any items in evidence have not been returned to BM before today, then there's probably a good reason why it's being retained.

 

[Megnut]

He's cheap. Maybe he wants the sheath back.

JMO

 

[Momofthreeboys]

IMO, if any items in evidence have not been returned to BM before today, then there's probably a good reason why it's being retained.

Not necessarily...if they seized all his weapons, not all his weapons can be directly connected to the alleged criminal activity. They can only hold for evidence those things that are connected directly from my understanding of the prior post explaining the Colorado statute.

 

[Ontario Mom]

Thanks, @crhedBngr for the docket screen -- I think OP was asking about the random 8/16/2022 date.

Yes, it was the 08.16.22 date that I was asking about.

 

[Momofthreeboys]

Yes, it was the 08.16.22 date that I was asking about.

Wasn’t that the date they reopened the case file?

 

[Ontario Mom]

Wasn’t that the date they reopened the case file?

I'm not sure. Where would that information be? Obviously I'm missing something here, lol.

 

[California Dreamin’]

IMO, if any items in evidence have not been returned to BM before today, then there's probably a good reason why it's being retained.

Thanks @Seattle1 ! That makes good sense .