SUMMARY 

May 31, 2018 

2018COA76

No. 15CA1081, People v. Jaquez — Constitutional Law — Fifth 

Amendment — Right Against Self-Incrimination; Criminal Law 

— Pre-Trial Identification 

As a matter of first impression, a division of the court of 

appeals holds that the admission of statements made during a 

one-on-one voice identification procedure not preceded by Miranda

warnings, that the division concludes was a custodial interrogation, 

violated the defendant’s Fifth Amendment right against 

self-incrimination. 

During the custodial interrogation a police agent, without 

asking the defendant to repeat the words used by the robber, 

induced the defendant to speak the same words as those used by a 

robber during a nearby armed robbery. This is in contrast to a 

voice exemplar typically used in a voice identification procedure 

The summaries of the Colorado Court of Appeals published opinions 

constitute no part of the opinion of the division but have been prepared by 

the division for the convenience of the reader. The summaries may not be 

cited or relied upon as they are not the official language of the division. 

Any discrepancy between the language in the summary and in the opinion 

should be resolved in favor of the language in the opinion. 
where the defendant is asked to speak the same words spoken by 

the robber. In that case, no Fifth Amendment violation occurs 

because the characteristics of a person’s voice are not protected by 

the Fifth Amendment. 

Here, the words the defendant chose to utter were admitted 

and argued by the prosecution as substantive evidence of his guilt. 

The division concludes that the admission of this evidence 

inculpated the defendant and violated his Fifth Amendment right 

against self-incrimination. This error was not harmless beyond a 

reasonable doubt, requiring reversal of defendant’s armed robbery 

conviction. 

The division also concludes that the one-on-one voice 

identification procedure was impermissibly suggestive and remands 

to the trial court to make further findings on reliability under 

Bernal v. People, 44 P.3d 184, 190 (Colo. 2002). 
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2018COA76

Court of Appeals No. 15CA1081 

Adams County District Court No. 14CR2305 

Honorable John E. Popovich, Judge 

The People of the State of Colorado, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

Anthony Roger Jaquez, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

JUDGMENT REVERSED AND CASE 

REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS 

Division IV 

Opinion by JUDGE BERGER 

Hawthorne and Miller*, JJ., concur 

Announced May 31, 2018 

Cynthia H. Coffman, Attorney General, John T. Lee, Senior Assistant Attorney 

General, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellee 

Douglas K. Wilson, Colorado State Public Defender, Kamela Maktabi, Deputy 

State Public Defender, Denver, Colorado, for Defendant-Appellant

*Sitting by assignment of the Chief Justice under provisions of Colo. Const. art. 

VI, § 5(3), and § 24-51-1105, C.R.S. 2017.
1 

¶ 1 During a one-on-one voice identification procedure, the victim 

of an armed robbery was directed by the police to speak with the 

defendant, Anthony Roger Jaquez, while Jaquez was in custody, to 

“see if [Jaquez] would say anything to [the victim].” Jaquez was not 

warned of his Fifth Amendment rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 

384 U.S. 436 (1966), before this encounter. 

¶ 2 Unlike a typical voice identification procedure, Jaquez was not 

merely asked to repeat the words heard by the victim during the 

robbery. Instead, Jaquez and the victim had a brief conversation 

during which Jaquez made statements that were nearly identical to 

the statements made by the robber. These statements were 

admitted at his criminal trial as substantive evidence of his guilt. 

¶ 3 We must decide whether the admission of those statements 

violated Jaquez’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. 

We conclude that the statements should not have been admitted 

and further conclude that the error was not constitutionally 

harmless. Accordingly, we reverse Jaquez’s conviction and remand 

for a new trial. 
2 

I. Relevant Facts And Procedural History 

¶ 4 The prosecution’s evidence permitted the jury to find the 

following facts. At approximately 4:50 a.m., a masked man robbed 

an Adams County 7-Eleven and its store clerk at gunpoint. The 

robber directed the clerk to give him the money in the cash register, 

and told the clerk that as long as he cooperated, “he wouldn’t be 

harmed.” 

¶ 5 The clerk gave the robber the money in the cash register — 

approximately $107, comprised of ten, five, and one dollar bills. 

The robber then left the store. The clerk immediately triggered the 

store’s silent alarm and called 911. 

¶ 6 The clerk described the robber as male, wearing a blue 

bandana over his face, a white hat, black coat, blue jeans, white 

shoes, and white contact lenses.1 When officers arrived on scene, 

the clerk also told them that he recognized the voice of the robber 

as the voice of a prior customer. He said that when the robber told 

him that he would not harm him, the robber drew out, in an 

unusual manner, the “h” in the word harm. 

 

1 White contact lenses cover the iris of a person’s eye, thus making 

it difficult (if not impossible) to discern the person’s natural eye 

color. 
3 

¶ 7 Roughly ten minutes after the robber left the 7-Eleven, Jaquez 

was walking north up a hill in the Lamplighter Mobile Home Trailer 

Park — about six blocks from the 7-Eleven — and came across Paul 

Harris sitting on his porch. Harris noticed that Jaquez “seemed a 

bit out of breath, a little sweaty, [and] kind of look[ed] a little tired.” 

The two started a conversation. Jaquez told Harris that he had 

been in an argument with his cousin, and that his cousin had 

driven off in their car. Jaquez explained that he lived in Pueblo, 

and asked Harris if he knew how to get to the nearest Greyhound 

bus station. Harris did not know where the Greyhound station was, 

so instead tried to explain how to get to the local bus. However, it 

became clear to him that Jaquez did not know the area well enough 

to understand the directions Harris was giving. 

¶ 8 Jaquez then asked Harris to give him a ride to the bus stop. 

Harris initially refused. Jaquez asked again and told Harris that he 

was willing to pay him. Jaquez pulled a wad of cash out of his 

pocket, which, according to Harris, contained some ten, five, and 

one dollar bills. Harris then reluctantly agreed to give Jaquez a ride 

to the bus stop, but permitted Jaquez to first use his cell phone, his 

bathroom, and have a drink of water. 
4 

¶ 9 The two started walking towards Harris’s car, but they saw a 

police car parked on the nearby corner. For reasons not explained 

by the record, Harris suggested that they go back to his house and 

wait until the police left the area. Jaquez instead suggested that 

Harris go pick up his car, and then meet him back at Harris’s 

house. Harris agreed. As he walked to his car, he was stopped by 

the police officer. After some questioning, Harris told the officer 

about his interactions with Jaquez. 

¶ 10 Harris then took officers back to his house where Jaquez was 

supposed to be waiting. The officers searched Harris’s house and 

surrounding yard but did not find Jaquez. While the officers were 

speaking with Harris outside his house, Harris noticed Jaquez 

crouched between two cars, and pointed him out to officers. 

¶ 11 An officer approached Jaquez, but Jaquez walked away. The 

officer told Jaquez to stop, but Jaquez started jogging. The officer 

ran after Jaquez and, a short distance away, the officer stopped 

Jaquez, handcuffed him, and placed him in the backseat of a police 

vehicle. At the time, Jaquez was wearing jeans, a black t-shirt, and 

white shoes; he had $28.58 in his possession. He did not have a 
5 

white hat, blue bandana, white contact lenses, black jacket, or a 

gun. 

¶ 12 Shortly after Jaquez was apprehended, the 7-Eleven clerk was 

brought to the mobile home park for a show-up identification. The 

clerk was unable to make a visual identification because the robber 

had covered his face and disguised the color of his eyes with white 

contact lenses. 

¶ 13 As an alternative to a visual identification, the police asked the 

clerk to speak to Jaquez to see if he could recognize Jaquez’s voice 

as the voice of the robber. Importantly, the police did not ask 

Jaquez to repeat the words the robber had used during the robbery. 

Instead, the officers told the clerk that he did not need to ask 

Jaquez any questions, but was told “to speak with [Jaquez] and tell 

him that, listen, I was just robbed and I don’t want to see you get in 

trouble or jammed up if you didn’t do this and just see if [Jaquez] 

would speak with [the clerk].” 

¶ 14 At the time, Jaquez was in the backseat of the police vehicle in 

handcuffs with the window closest to him rolled down. The clerk 

stood next to the car and did exactly what the police told him to do: 

he told Jaquez that he did not want to see him get “jammed up” for 
6 

something he did not do. Jaquez responded by saying he “wouldn’t 

do anything like that . . . he wouldn’t harm him.” The clerk 

immediately walked to the nearest officer and identified Jaquez as 

the robber. Based on this identification, Jaquez was arrested and 

charged with aggravated robbery. 

¶ 15 Jaquez moved to suppress both the out-of-court voice 

identification and the statements he made to the clerk during the 

voice identification procedure. After an evidentiary hearing, the 

trial court ruled that both would be admissible at trial. 

¶ 16 The prosecution also presented testimony by an investigating 

officer who testified that in watching the surveillance video at the 

7-Eleven, he noticed that the robber had a distinct gait. This 

distinct gait drew the officer’s attention to the robber’s feet, which 

led him to notice an unusual crease in the robber’s jeans. The 

officer further testified that he compared a photo of Jaquez’s jeans 

to a still frame from the surveillance video from the 7-Eleven. From 

this, he concluded that Jaquez had the same unusual crease in his 

jeans as the robber. 

¶ 17 Jaquez was convicted as charged. He appeals, arguing that 

the trial court erred by (1) admitting the statements made to the 
7 

clerk during a custodial interrogation in violation his Fifth 

Amendment rights; (2) admitting the clerk’s one-on-one voice 

identification because the identification procedure was unduly 

suggestive and unreliable in violation of his right to due process; 

and (3) permitting a police officer to give expert opinion testimony 

when he was not disclosed or qualified as an expert under CRE 702 

and Crim. P. 16(I)(a)(1)(III). 

II. Jaquez’s Statements Were Admitted in Violation of the Fifth 

Amendment 

¶ 18 Jaquez contends that the trial court violated his Fifth 

Amendment right against self-incrimination when it admitted the 

statements he made to the clerk during his voice identification. We 

agree. 

A. Introduction 

¶ 19 In its written order addressing the admissibility of Jaquez’s 

statements, the trial court found that the clerk’s colloquy with 

Jaquez constituted a custodial interrogation under Miranda. It also 

found, with record support, that the clerk was acting as an agent of 

the state. Nevertheless, the trial court determined that Jaquez’s 

statement, “I would not harm you,” made while he was in custody, 
8 

was admissible because Jaquez was merely asked to repeat the 

words as spoken by the robber. As a result, the trial court found 

that the statements were nontestimonial and thus not protected by 

the Fifth Amendment. 

¶ 20 Had Jaquez been directed to say the words said by the robber 

for the purposes of the voice identification procedure, the trial 

court’s analysis would have been sound and consistent with the 

Fifth Amendment. But, the record does not support the factual 

underpinning of the court’s analysis. 

¶ 21 At trial, the prosecutor introduced the statements both 

through the clerk and through a police officer who was standing 

nearby. The prosecutor had the following colloquy with the clerk: 

Q. And what was the response from the 

individual in the police car when you said -- 

A. He said, “I wouldn’t harm you.”

Q. What was your reaction when you heard 

that? 

A. It shocked me because it was exactly the 

same way, the same words that was [sic] said 

to me when I was being robbed. 

Q. And what, if anything, did you do? 

A. I immediately walked back to the back end 

of the police car, and I said, “That’s him.” 
9 

(Emphasis added.) 

¶ 22 The prosecutor asked the officer: 

Q. Okay. So you were nearby? 

A. Yes. 

Q. And could you hear the conversation 

between [the clerk] and Mr. Jaquez? 

A. Yes. 

Q. What did you hear the defendant say? 

A. “I don’t mean you any harm.” “I don’t mean 

you no harm.” And because of our prior 

conversation about that specific verbiage and 

how unusual that would be said really in 

general, that was one of the main points of the 

conversation.

Q. So that was very noticeable to you when 

you heard him say that? 

A. Yes. 

(Emphasis added.) 

¶ 23 In its closing argument the prosecution emphasized that 

during the voice identification procedure Jaquez volitionally used 

the same words as the robber. 

B. Miranda 

¶ 24 Miranda enforces a suspect’s constitutional right against 

self-incrimination by prohibiting the admission of statements 
10 

procured by custodial interrogation, unless the suspect was first 

advised of his rights. Miranda, 384 U.S. at 444. Miranda’s 

safeguards “only apply when a suspect is subject to both custody 

and interrogation.” Effland v. People, 240 P.3d 868, 873 (Colo. 

2010). 

¶ 25 It is uncontested that Jaquez was in custody at the time of the 

voice identification. The Attorney General contends, however, that 

either (1) there was no interrogation; or (2) Jaquez’s statements 

were nothing more than a voice exemplar used to identify him, 

which normally would not constitute a testimonial statement 

protected by the Fifth Amendment. We address both contentions in 

turn. 

1. The Clerk was an Agent of the Police 

¶ 26 We first note that there was no challenged interrogation by a 

police officer; instead, Jaquez’s statements at issue were made to a 

private citizen, the clerk. Therefore, the Fifth Amendment could 

only preclude the admission of Jaquez’s statement to the clerk if the 

clerk was an agent of the state. People v. Robledo, 832 P.2d 249, 

250 (Colo. 1992). 
11 

¶ 27 “State action has been extended to include civilians acting as 

agents of the state in order to prevent law enforcement officials from 

circumventing the Miranda requirements by directing a third party 

to act on their behalf.” Id. “The test as to whether a private citizen 

has acted as an agent of the police for purposes of criminal 

investigation is whether the person ‘in light of all the circumstances 

of the case, must be regarded as having acted as an “instrument” or 

agent of the state.’” People v. Lopez, 946 P.2d 478, 481 (Colo. App. 

1997) (quoting Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 487 

(1971)). 

¶ 28 The trial court found that the clerk was an agent of the state 

because he was acting at the specific direction of law enforcement 

officials. The Attorney General does not contend that this finding 

was clearly erroneous, a concession that is well supported by the 

record. The clerk only spoke with Jaquez at the direction and 

request of the police. The police told him what to say, and they 

stood nearby and listened to Jaquez’s response. 

¶ 29 “Our role as an appellate court is to review the record to 

determine whether the trial court’s findings of fact are adequately 

supported by competent evidence and whether the court applied the 
12 

correct legal standard to these findings in resolving the issue before 

it.” Robledo, 832 P.2d at 251. Under these circumstances, the trial 

court correctly found that the clerk was acting as an “instrument” 

of the state. See Lopez, 946 P.2d at 481-82. 

¶ 30 We next turn to whether the clerk’s interaction with Jaquez 

constituted an interrogation within the meaning of the Fifth 

Amendment. 

2. The Clerk’s Colloquy with Jaquez Constituted an Interrogation 

¶ 31 A suspect’s statement is in response to interrogation if he was 

“subjected to either express questioning or its functional 

equivalent.” Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 300-01 (1980). 

Interrogation includes “any words or actions on the part of the 

police [or their agent] . . . that the police should know are 

reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response.” Id. at 301. 

“The latter portion of this definition focuses primarily upon the 

perceptions of the suspect, rather than the intent of the police.” Id.

¶ 32 Whether a custodial interrogation occurred is a mixed 

question of fact and law. People v. Barraza, 2013 CO 20, ¶ 15. 

While we defer to the trial court’s findings of historical fact and will 

not overturn them if they are supported by the record, “we review de 
13 

novo the legal question whether those facts, taken together, 

establish that custodial interrogation occurred.” Id.

¶ 33 The trial court found that the interaction between the clerk 

and Jaquez was an interrogation for the purposes of Miranda. This 

conclusion is supported by the record. See People v. Wood, 135 

P.3d 744, 751 (Colo. 2006). The evidence presented at the 

suppression hearing indicated that officers directed the clerk to 

speak to Jaquez. They told the clerk to “just see if [Jaquez] would 

talk to [him].” The police instructed the clerk to tell Jaquez that he 

did not want Jaquez to get in trouble if he did nothing wrong — 

thus inviting Jaquez to make inculpatory (or exculpatory) 

statements. A reasonable officer directing this interaction should 

have known that such a statement by the clerk was “reasonably 

likely to elicit an incriminating response” from Jaquez. Innis, 446 

U.S. at 301. 

¶ 34 We thus conclude that the colloquy between the clerk and 

Jaquez constituted an interrogation within the meaning of Miranda 

and Innis. 
14 

3. Jaquez’s Statements Were Not a Voice Exemplar 

¶ 35 The Attorney General nevertheless argues that even if there 

was a custodial interrogation, the admission of Jaquez’s statements 

did not violate the Fifth Amendment because the underlying 

purpose and use of the interaction was for the clerk to identify 

Jaquez’s voice, rather than for the substance of what Jaquez said. 

That is, the Attorney General contends that Jaquez’s statements 

were merely a voice exemplar. 

¶ 36 If this were factually accurate, then the statements by Jaquez 

would not be subject to the Fifth Amendment’s protections. “One’s 

voice and handwriting are, of course, means of communication. It 

by no means follows, however, that every compulsion of an accused 

to use his voice or write compels a communication within the cover 

of the [Fifth Amendment] privilege.” Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 

263, 266 (1967). As another division of this court has said, “the 

Fifth Amendment does not protect ‘[p]articular characteristics of a 

person’s voice,’ such as ‘tone, accents, or speech impediments.’” 

People v. Ortega, 2015 COA 38, ¶ 28 (quoting York v. 

Commonwealth, 353 S.W.3d 603, 606 (Ky. 2011)). 
15 

¶ 37 The question, therefore, is this: Were the words spoken by 

Jaquez merely a voice exemplar used to identify him, or were they 

volitional statements used by the prosecution as substantive 

evidence of his guilt? We conclude they were the latter. 

¶ 38 Had the police (or the clerk) asked Jaquez to repeat the words 

used by the robber, his Fifth Amendment rights would not have 

been implicated. See Ortega, ¶ 28. But here, the clerk was directed 

to have a conversation with Jaquez to see if he could recognize 

Jaquez’s voice. The prosecution then used the very words that 

Jaquez chose to utter in response to this interrogation — and the 

fact that they were the same words used by the robber — as 

substantive evidence of Jaquez’s guilt. Jaquez’s use of the same 

words uttered by the robber obviously inculpated him, completely 

apart from the clerk’s voice identification. 

¶ 39 Because Jaquez was subject to custodial interrogation and 

was not given Miranda warnings before being subjected to the 

interrogation, the court violated Jaquez’s Fifth Amendment rights 

by admitting his statements. Jaquez’s conviction can only be 
16 

upheld, therefore, if this error was harmless beyond a reasonable 

doubt. Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 (1967).2

C. The Erroneous Admission of Jaquez’s Statements Was Not 

Constitutionally Harmless 

¶ 40 “If a statement obtained in violation of Miranda was admitted 

as part of the prosecution’s case-in-chief, over the defendant’s 

objection, reversal is required unless the error was harmless beyond 

a reasonable doubt.” People v. Frye, 2014 COA 141, ¶ 6 (quoting 

People v. Vasquez, 155 P.3d 588, 592 (Colo. App. 2006)). Reversal 

is required if “there is a reasonable possibility that the [error] might 

have contributed to the conviction.” Chapman, 386 U.S. at 24 

(quoting Fahy v. Connecticut, 375 U.S. 85, 86-87 (1963)). “[T]he 

 

2 The Attorney General also argues that even if there was a 

custodial interrogation, Jaquez’s statements were made knowingly 

and therefore were admissible at trial. To the extent we understand 

this argument, we reject it. Jaquez was not advised of his Fifth 

Amendment rights before he made the statements, and “unwarned 

custodial statements, whether or not voluntary, are inadmissible in 

the ‘government’s direct case, or otherwise, as substantive evidence 

of guilt.’” People v. Trujillo, 49 P.3d 316, 321 (Colo. 2002) (quoting 

United States v. Havens, 446 U.S. 620, 628 (1980)). The Attorney 

General’s argument appears to address the concept that voluntarily 

made unwarned statements may be admissible at trial for the 

limited purpose of impeaching the defendant. See id. But, the 

statements here were admitted in the prosecution’s case-in-chief, 

not as impeachment evidence. 
17 

State bears the burden of proving the error was harmless beyond a 

reasonable doubt.” Hagos v. People, 2012 CO 63, ¶ 11. 

¶ 41 The evidence of Jaquez’s guilt (other than his statements to 

the clerk) consisted of the following: 

 the voice identification made by the clerk; 

 certain jailhouse phone calls made to Jaquez’s family in 

which he apologized for his mistake; 

 an officer’s testimony that Jaquez and the robber had the 

same gait and crease in their jeans; 

 Harris’s testimony regarding his interaction with Jaquez, 

including his testimony that he overheard Jaquez say on 

the phone that he “had the loot”; and 

 Jaquez’s proximity to the scene of the crime. 

¶ 42 While the question is close, we conclude that the prosecution 

has not met its burden to prove that the erroneous admission of 

Jaquez’s statements was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See 

id.

¶ 43 The voice identification and the fact that Jaquez used the 

same words as the robber were among the most convincing 

evidence of Jaquez’s guilt. Without Jaquez’s statements to bolster 
18 

the reliability of the identification, it is unclear what weight a finder 

of fact would assign to the identification alone. 

¶ 44 The Attorney General relies heavily on the jailhouse phone 

calls as overwhelming evidence of Jaquez’s guilt. To be sure, the 

phone calls could be considered by a jury as incriminating evidence. 

But, Jaquez’s statements were ambiguous, at least with respect to 

the use of a gun. Thus, we do not place the same significance on 

the phone calls as does the Attorney General, at least in the context 

of determining whether the constitutional error was harmless 

beyond a reasonable doubt. 

¶ 45 Contrary to the Attorney General’s suggestion, the fact that 

Jaquez was relatively close to the scene of the crime when he was 

apprehended actually weighs in Jaquez’s favor. The defense 

pointed out at trial that the prosecution did not explain how Jaquez 

could have disposed of the jacket, hat, bandana, contacts, gun, and 

most (if not all) of the stolen money in a place where neither the 

police nor police dogs could find them and still have had enough 

time to get to Harris’s home — roughly six blocks from the 7-Eleven 

— in ten minutes. 
19 

¶ 46 In the end, we conclude that although there was substantial 

evidence of Jaquez’s guilt, there was not overwhelming evidence. 

We therefore cannot conclude that the guilty verdict was “surely 

unattributable to the error.” See Blecha v. People, 962 P.2d 931, 

942 (Colo. 1998). Accordingly, we reverse Jaquez’s conviction and 

remand for a new trial. 

III. The Voice Identification Procedure was Impermissibly 

Suggestive 

¶ 47 Because the issue may arise on a retrial, we address Jaquez’s 

contention that the admission of the clerk’s out-of-court voice 

identification violated his right to due process because the 

identification was impermissibly suggestive and unreliable. We 

agree that the identification was impermissibly suggestive, and if 

the prosecution again offers the voice identification on retrial 

(limited of course by our holding above),3 the trial court must make 

findings on the reliability of the identification. 

 

3 On retrial, if the prosecution offers the out-of-court identification, 

it may properly ask the clerk questions surrounding the 

identification, as well as the fact that the clerk made a positive 

identification. However, the prosecution may not introduce the 

actual words used by Jaquez during the identification and the fact 

that they were the same words as those used by the robber. 
20 

A. Standard of Review and Applicable Law 

¶ 48 We review the constitutionality of pretrial identification 

procedures as a mixed question of fact and law. People v. Whittiker, 

181 P.3d 264, 272 (Colo. App. 2006). Thus, we defer to the trial 

court’s findings of fact, but review its legal conclusions de novo. 

Bernal v. People, 44 P.3d 184, 190 (Colo. 2002). 

¶ 49 A defendant is denied due process of law if an out-of-court 

identification is so impermissibly suggestive and unreliable as to 

give rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable 

misidentification. Id. at 192. 

¶ 50 In analyzing whether the admission of an out-of-court 

identification violates a defendant’s right to due process, the court 

must first determine if the identification was impermissibly 

suggestive. Id. at 191. If the defendant has not met this burden, 

the inquiry ends there and the identification is admissible. Id. 

However, if the court finds the identification procedure to be 

impermissibly suggestive, “the burden shifts to the People to show 

that despite the improper suggestiveness, the identification was 

nevertheless reliable under the ‘totality of the circumstances.’” Id.

(quoting Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 114 (1977)). 
21 

¶ 51 “One-on-one showup identifications are not per se violative of 

due process, although the procedure is viewed with disfavor 

because of its strong potential for unnecessary suggestiveness.” 

People v. Theus-Roberts, 2015 COA 32, ¶ 8 (citing People v. 

Mascarenas, 666 P.2d 101, 109 (Colo. 1983)). “Suggestive 

confrontations are disapproved because they increase the likelihood 

of misidentification, and unnecessarily suggestive ones are 

condemned for the further reason that the increased chance of 

misidentification is gratuitous.” Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 198 

(1972). 

¶ 52 But, if the identification procedure is impermissibly 

suggestive, the court must then determine if the identification was 

nonetheless sufficiently reliable to permit the jury to consider it. In 

making that determination, the court must consider: (1) the 

opportunity of the witness to hear the suspect at the time of the 

crime; (2) the witness’s degree of attention; (3) the accuracy of the 

prior description of the suspect’s voice; (4) the level of certainty 

demonstrated at the identification procedure; and (5) the time 

between the crime and confrontation. People v. Holden, 703 P.2d 
22 

603, 605 (Colo. App. 1985) (addressing the reliability of voice 

identification procedures); see also Bernal, 44 P.3d at 192. 

B. Application 

¶ 53 At the suppression hearing, the trial court concluded that the 

one-on-one voice identification was not impermissibly suggestive. 

This conclusion is not supported by the record and is clearly 

erroneous. See People v. Singley, 2015 COA 78M, ¶ 25. 

¶ 54 During the voice identification Jaquez was handcuffed in the 

back of a police vehicle, with multiple police officers standing near 

the vehicle. One-on-one showups are viewed with disfavor, even 

assuming there are no other corrupting influences. But, when 

“[t]he suggestive elements in [the] identification procedure made it 

all but inevitable that [the witness] would identify [the defendant]” 

the identification procedure was impermissibly suggestive. Foster v. 

California, 394 U.S. 440, 443 (1969). 

¶ 55 Under the circumstances before us, we conclude that the 

one-on-one voice identification was impermissibly suggestive. But, 

as noted above, that does not end the inquiry. Instead, the court 

must next address the relevant factors under Bernal to determine 
23 

whether the identification was nonetheless sufficiently reliable, and 

thus admissible. 44 P.3d at 192. 

¶ 56 Because of its erroneous determination that the one-on-one 

show-up identification was not impermissibly suggestive, the trial 

court did not address all of the Bernal factors to determine whether 

the identification was nevertheless sufficiently reliable to be 

presented to the jury. On remand, should the prosecution seek to 

present the identification evidence, the court must make 

appropriate findings under Bernal and determine if the 

identification was sufficiently reliable to allow it to be presented to 

the jury. See id.; see also People v. Portley, 857 P.2d 459, 465 

(Colo. App. 1992); Holden, 703 P.2d at 605. 

IV. Expert Testimony 

¶ 57 Jaquez also contends that the trial court erred by allowing a 

police officer to testify regarding the specific gait of the robber 

without requiring him to be qualified as an expert. We do not know 

what evidence will be presented on retrial, and thus do not address 

this question. Instead, we only note that should the prosecution 

again offer this testimony, the court must analyze its admissibility 
24 

under the principles set forth in Venalonzo v. People, 2017 CO 9, a 

case decided after Jaquez’s trial. 

V. Conclusion 

¶ 58 The judgment of conviction is reversed and the case is 

remanded for a new trial at which Jaquez’s statements to the clerk 

during the one-on-one identification procedure must be suppressed. 

JUDGE HAWTHORNE and JUDGE MILLER concur.