As used in this part 2, unless the context otherwise requires:
(1) "State" includes any territory of the United States and the District of Columbia.
(2) "Summons" includes a subpoena, order, or other notice requiring the appearance of a witness.
(3) "Witness" includes a person whose testimony is desired in any proceeding or investigation by a grand jury or in a criminal action, prosecution, or proceeding.
Source: L. 72: R&RE, p. 235, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 39-9-204.
ANNOTATION
Method for compelling attendance of out-of-state witnesses. This uniform act provides a method whereby, among states that have adopted the act, a court of one state may certify the need for the appearance and testimony of a material witness residing in another state and thereby invoke the authority of the court in the resident state to compel the witness's attendance in the certifying court. Hence, at least under the circumstances specified in the statute, a Colorado court may now compel the attendance of out-of-state witnesses. People v. McCabe, 37 Colo. App. 181, 546 P.2d 1289 (1975).
Payment for witnesses is the obligation of the state. In concluding that the courts lack the ability to compel the attendance of out-of-state witnesses for an indigent defendant, a court's reliance upon the silence of the uniform act as to the source of any money to be paid to the witness was misplaced in Colorado. The failure of the uniform act to address this issue does not support this conclusion since the statutes and rules of criminal procedure both create the obligation and provide for payment. People v. McCabe, 37 Colo. App. 181, 546 P.2d 1289 (1975).
The provisions of this part 2 do not extend to authorizing a court to subpoena a witness who is residing outside the United States. The district court erred in granting a motion under the provisions of rule 15 of the Colorado rules of criminal procedure to depose a witness residing in Mexico. The rule requires that the deposition be conducted in the presence of the court and requires the court to subpoena the witness. The court does not have jurisdiction to subpoena a witness who resides in another country because the provisions of this part 2 extend only to other states that have adopted a similar law, not to foreign countries. Without another statute authorizing such a subpoena, the court was proceeding without jurisdiction. People v. Arellano-Avila, 20 P.3d 1191 (Colo. 2001).