Colo. R. Evid. 501
Except as otherwise required by the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of the State of Colorado, statutes of the State of Colorado, rules prescribed by the Supreme Court of the State of Colorado pursuant to constitutional authority, or by the principles of the common law as they may be interpreted by the courts of the State of Colorado in light of reason and experience, no person has a privilege to:
CRE 501
Annotation Law reviews. For comment "Reporter's Privilege: Pankratz v. District Court", see 58 Den. L.J. 681 (1981). For article, "Rule 501: The Privilege of Self-Critical Analysis", see 24 Colo. Law. 1291 (1994). Rule applies to all stages of an action and is applicable to pretrial discovery. Sherman v. District Court, 637 P.2d 378 (Colo. 1981). Third persons may testify to overheard confidential conversations. If parties sustaining confidential relations to each other hold their conversation in the presence and hearing of third persons, whether they be necessarily present as police officers or indifferent bystanders, such third persons are not prohibited from testifying to what they heard. People in Interest of R.G., 630 P.2d 89 (Colo. App. 1981). News reporter has no privilege to refuse to respond to subpoena. Where a news reporter, who is a first-hand observer of criminal conduct, is subpoenaed to testify and to produce relevant documents in the course of a valid grand jury investigation or criminal trial, there is no privilege under the Colorado constitution to refuse to respond to a subpoena. Pankratz v. District Court, 199 Colo. 411, 609 P.2d 1101 (Colo. 1980). Hospital inspection committees' privilege not expanded. Absent legislative action and in light of the general policy favoring liberal discovery, the public interest in the confidentiality of hospital inspection committees is insufficient to warrant judicial expansion of the privilege contained in § 12-43.5-102(3)(e). Sherman v. District Court, 637 P.2d 378 (Colo. 1981).