Source: https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/tag/witness-testimony/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 16:21:54+00:00

Document:
The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in People v. Senette on Thursday, July 26, 2018.
Criminal Law—Witness—Subpoena—Motion for Continuance—Bench Warrant.
The prosecution charged defendant with aggravated robbery and menacing against a single victim, M.T. When M.T., who was a necessary witness and was under subpoena, did not appear at trial, the prosecution requested that the trial court issue a bench warrant and grant a brief continuance to secure the M.T.’s attendance. The trial court denied both requests and, at defendant’s request, dismissed the charges.
On appeal, the People argued that the trial court erred by denying its motion for a continuance and dismissing the case. The trial court abused its discretion in denying the continuance because it (1) misapplied the law regarding the issuance of a bench warrant as a remedy to procure the attendance of a missing witness, and (2) failed to consider the factors relevant to the prosecutor’s motion to continue. Those factors included whether the prosecutor was diligent in securing the witness’s attendance, whether a continuance would be effective in securing the witness’s attendance, and the prejudice that a continuance would cause both parties.
The People also contended that the trial court erred in dismissing the charges after denying the continuance. Because the trial court erred in denying the motion for continuance, and the dismissal of the charges was a direct result of that erroneous decision, the trial court erred in dismissing the case.
The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in People v. Ehrnstein on Monday, May 21, 2018.
Special Prosecutors—Colo. RPC 3.7—Post-Trial Proceedings.
In this interlocutory appeal, the supreme court reviewed the trial court’s order appointing a special prosecutor for the purpose of litigating defendant’s post-trial motion for a new trial. In his motion, defendant alleged that the prosecution had improperly instructed a witness to evade a defense subpoena. The trial court concluded that the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct compelled it to appoint a special prosecutor for the purposes of the hearing on this motion because, subject to exceptions not pertinent here, Colo. RPC 3.7 prohibits an attorney from acting as both an advocate and a witness during the same proceeding.
The court concluded that the trial court abused its discretion in appointing a special prosecutor because that court misapplied the law when it found that Colo. RPC 3.7 required the appointment of a special prosecutor in the circumstances present here. Specifically, the rule serves to prevent prejudice that arises from jury confusion in cases in which an attorney serves as both counsel and witness. Because this proceeding arose in the context of a post-trial motion, that concern is not implicated.
The court reversed the trial court’s order and remanded this case for further proceedings.
The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in People v. Short on Thursday, April 5, 2018.
Sexual Assault on Child—Testimony—Credibility—Rule of Completeness—Exculpatory Statement—Hearsay Exceptions—Sentence.
A jury found Short guilty of sexual assault on a child and sexual assault on a child as a pattern of abuse.
On appeal, Short contended that the testimony of three witnesses improperly bolstered the victim’s credibility. Short did not object to any of this testimony. It was not improper for the therapist to testify as an expert as to the typical demeanor and behavioral traits displayed by a sexually abused child. It was also not improper for the detective to testify concerning his observations about child victim disclosures; he rendered no opinion about whether a child’s difficulty in disclosing something made it more or less likely that he or she was telling the truth. Finally, although the grandmother’s testimony that the victim “normally would not lie about something like that” was improper, it did not warrant reversal.
Short also argued that the trial court erroneously compelled him to forgo admitting an exculpatory part of a statement he gave to the police by telling him that, if that part of the statement was admitted, the prosecution would be permitted to expose the jury to the fact that he had previously been convicted of a felony. The trial court properly determined that Short’s otherwise inadmissible self-serving hearsay was admissible under the rule of completeness to qualify, explain, or place into context the evidence proffered by the prosecution. However, a defendant’s exculpatory statement to the police admissible under the rule of completeness is not subject to impeachment under CRE 806. Although the trial court erred, the error was harmless.
Short also contended and the People conceded that only one judgment of conviction and sentence should have been imposed in this case. The trial court incorrectly entered separate convictions for sexual assault on a child and sexual assault on a child as a pattern of abuse. The pattern of abuse count acts only as a sentence enhancer.
The judgment was affirmed in part and vacated in part, and the case was remanded with directions.
The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in McGillis Investment Company, LLP v. First Interstate Financial Utah, LLC on Thursday, August 13, 2015.
Fifth Amendment Privilege Invoked in Front of Jury by Nonparty—Adverse Inference Instruction.
McGillis Investment Company, LLP’s (MIC) principal, McGillis, and First Interstate Financial Utah, LLC’s and First Interstate Financial LLP’s (FIF) principal, Thurston, worked to finance a multitude of commercial real estate loans between 1995 and 2009. This dispute concerns a 2003 loan made by MIC and FIF to Kersey Commercial Park, LLC (Kersey Commercial) for $1.85 million (Kersey Loan) to purchase sixty-three acres of property to develop an industrial park (Kersey Property). When Thurston recommended that MIC finance the Kersey Loan, MIC did not know that the purchasers were involved in a series of transactions of questionable legitimacy surrounding the Kersey Property.
Kersey Commercial never made a payment on the Kersey Loan and was in default by May 2004. Thurston, on behalf of MIC and FIF, executed a Dry-Up Agreement on July 29, 2004, which sold certain Water Rights of the Kersey Property to Lower Latham Reservoir Company in return for a payment of $785,000 to one of the developers. In October 2004, MIC and FIF commenced foreclosure proceedings and on May 12, 2005 purchased the Kersey Property at foreclosure for $1.6 million. On June 6, 2006, FIF sued the appraisers. On November 8, 2006, Thurston had MIC execute an assignment of the Property (Assignment) from McGillis Investments to FIF (though the purpose of the Assignment is disputed). In 2012, FIF settled the appraiser litigation for $438,500 and remitted the proceeds to MIC.
In February 2009, FIF sued Sytech Development (one of the developers) over the Kersey Loan. After McGillis’s son took over MIC in 2008, he concluded that FIF had breached its fiduciary duty to MIC in a variety of transactions, and in April 2009, MIC filed suit in Utah against FIF. In October 2012, the jury returned a verdict in MIC’s favor for $1.25 million. Three days after the Utah verdict, FIF recorded the Assignment with the Weld County Clerk and Recorder. FIF settled the Sytech litigation on November 17, 2012 for $20,000.
On June 1, 2011, MIC filed this lawsuit against FIF, seeking to quiet title to the Kersey Property and damages for breach of fiduciary duty for FIF’s recording the Assignment and settling the Sytech litigation. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the trial court granted partial summary judgment based on claim preclusion in favor of FIF as concerned the validity of the Assignment and quieted title to the Kersey Property in FIF. MIC appealed, and a division of the Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part, vacating the decree quieting title and reversing the summary judgment on claim preclusion. Following trial on remand, the jury returned a verdict for MIC for $1,300,625 and found that MIC owned the Kersey Property.
In this appeal, FIF argued that the trial court did not follow the Court’s mandate on remand by failing to determine whether MIC knew or should have known of the Assignment’s validity when it filed the Utah action and that it was error to allow the Sysum brothers to invoke their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination in front of the jury and in giving an adverse inference instruction. In civil cases, an adverse inference may be drawn against a party who invokes the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The Court found no Colorado case addressing whether a nonparty witness’s invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege constitutes admissible evidence. It adopted the analysis set forth in LiButti v. United States, 107 F.3d 110, 123 (2d Cir. 1997): the admissibility of a nonparty’s invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege and concomitant drawing of adverse inferences should be considered on a case-by-case basis to ensure any inference is reliable, relevant, and fairly advanced. The overarching concern is whether the adverse inference is trustworthy and will advance the search for the truth.
Based on the record before it, the Court found no error in the trial court’s having decided that one of the brothers could answer a generic question, to which he invoked his Fifth Amendment right, and that there was enough evidence presented to give the adverse inference instruction as to him. The Court found it was error to allow the other brother to invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege because there wasn’t enough evidence to involve him in the alleged fraud. However, the trial court remedied this error when it did not give the adverse inference instruction as to this brother but told the jury to disregard his invocation of the privilege.
FIF also argued that it was error for the trial court not to have determined whether MIC knew or should have known there was a dispute concerning the Assignment’s validity when it filed the Utah action. The jury did consider this issue, but FIF argued it should have been the trial court that made the determination. The Court disagreed. The law of the case established in MIC I was to determine what MIC knew or should have known and there was an interrogatory to the jury that covered this issue. The jury’s answering of the interrogatory resolved the factual dispute dispositive of claim preclusion against FIF and that satisfied the law of the case.
The Court also rejected FIF’s arguments that MIC could not re-litigate anything concerning the Kersey Loan transaction other than the issue concerning the validity of the Assignment and the settlement of the Sytech litigation. The Court determined that this argument was based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the prior ruling in MIC I on the part of FIF. The judgment was affirmed.
The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in United States v. Dewberry on Tuesday, June 23, 2015.
During an investigation of Virok Webb for crack cocaine distribution, the government became suspicious of Kennin Dewberry as Webb’s dealer. Some time in 2009 or 2010, Dewberry began supplying between 4.5 and 9 ounces of cocaine powder weekly to Webb, and Webb would convert the powder to crack cocaine or cut it with other ingredients (a process known as “the trick”) to double the quantity of powder. In October 2011 a grand jury issued a superseding indictment charging Dewberry, Webb, and others with two drug conspiracies: Count 1 charged them with conspiring to distribute 280 grams or more of crack cocaine and Count 2 charged them with conspiring to distribute 5 kilograms or more of powder cocaine. The government also filed an information stating that Dewberry had a prior felony marijuana conviction.
Dewberry filed a motion to sever his trial in March 2012, which the trial court denied as premature. He filed another motion to sever in February 2013, which the trial court granted. Dewberry’s trial was held in July 2013, and the government’s case was built almost entirely on the testimony of cooperating witnesses. All of the witnesses entered into plea agreements with the government. Dewberry moved for judgment of acquittal under F.R.Crim.P. 29 at the close of the government’s case and again at the close of his case, but the trial court denied both motions. The jury convicted Dewberry of both counts, and also issued special verdicts pertaining to the amount of drugs and finding he conspired to distribute 280 grams or more of crack cocaine and 5 kilograms or more of powder cocaine. In the PSR, the probation office recommended Dewberry be held accountable for 4.5 ounces of cocaine per week for a 21-week period, and of that he should be accountable for conversion of 2.5 ounces to crack cocaine. The remaining 2 ounces per week was doubled by employing “the trick,” and together these drug amounts equated to a base offense level of 34, which would lead to a presumptive sentencing range of 168 to 210 months, but Dewberry faced a mandatory minimum 20 year sentence because of his prior felony conviction. The district court adopted the PSR’s findings, sentencing Dewberry to concurrent sentences of 240 months for Count 1 and 168 months for Count 2. Dewberry appealed his convictions and sentence.
The Tenth Circuit first evaluated Dewberry’s sufficiency challenges to both counts. Dewberry asserted the government’s evidence was insufficient because it relied on cooperating witnesses who were not reliable and whose testimony was uncorroborated. The Tenth Circuit first noted that it would not reverse a conviction solely because the verdict was based on the uncorroborated testimony of a coconspirator. The Tenth Circuit similarly noted that credibility challenges are generally disfavored and found no reason to entertain Dewberry’s. Although Dewberry asserted the witness testimony was self-serving because they were offered plea deals, the Tenth Circuit found such arrangements common in criminal cases and the arrangement does not necessarily render the testimony incredible.
The Tenth Circuit next considered Dewberry’s challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence concerning the amount of crack cocaine. The jury must have based its finding of 280 grams of crack cocaine on reasonable foreseeability because there was no evidence that Dewberry handled that much. Dewberry contended that the quantity could not have been reasonably foreseeable to him. The Tenth Circuit disagreed, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the conviction and 240-month sentence.
The Tenth Circuit considered Dewberry’s challenge to the amount of powder cocaine for which he was held responsible. Dewberry argued the amount of crack cocaine attributed to him was incorrect, which affected the amount of powder cocaine. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding, noting that because it made a plausible finding it was not clearly erroneous.
Finally, Dewberry argued the court erred in denying his first motion to sever and causing him to experience undue delays waiting for trial. The Tenth Circuit disagreed, finding Dewberry could show no prejudice since the trial court granted his second motion to sever and finding the issue of Speedy Trial Act delays inadequately briefed.
The convictions and sentences were affirmed.
The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in People v. Vigil on Thursday, July 2, 2015.
Challenge for Cause—Burglary—Simple Variance—Unanimity Instruction—Lay Witness—Footprint Evidence.
A jury convicted Vigil of second-degree aggravated motor vehicle theft and second-degree burglary for taking a truck, motorcycle, flat-screen television, DVD player, and stereo from Casey Caldon’s farm. On appeal, Vigil contended that the trial court reversibly erred when it denied his challenge for cause to juror C.A. Although C.A. had performed electrical work for the Caldons over a number of years, he did not exhibit any bias and his statements indicated he could render an impartial verdict. Therefore, the trial court did not err in denying Vigil’s challenge for cause as to this juror. Vigil also claimed that the court erred in granting the prosecutor’s challenge for cause to prospective juror D.K. because that juror might have voted to acquit him. Here, Vigil’s claim failed because a defendant is not entitled to have any particular juror serve in his or her case.
Vigil also asserted that the prosecutor’s closing argument impermissibly expanded the second-degree burglary charge to include burglary of the “lean-to” (a shed up against a shop on the farm). In the bill of particulars, the prosecutor alleged that Vigil burglarized three structures: the trailer, the north shop, and the tractor. In closing argument, the prosecutor alleged that Vigil entered the lean-to to steal the truck. Therefore, a simple variance occurred. Because Vigil did not suffer prejudice from the simple variance, however, reversal was not warranted.
Vigil further argued that the trial court reversibly erred by not giving a modified unanimity instruction regarding the burglary count. Where the incidents occurred in a single transaction, such as here, the prosecutor need not elect among acts, and the trial court need not give a modified unanimity instruction. Therefore, the trial court did not err by not giving the modified unanimity instruction to the jury.
Vigil argued that the trial court erred by permitting Sergeant Crown, a lay witness, to testify about shoeprint evidence and by not excluding the shoeprint evidence for failing to disclose a Colorado Bureau of Investigation (CBI) report indicating that its analysis of the shoeprint evidence was inconclusive. Crown’s testimony was based on general measurements and peculiarities common to the shoeprints and Vigil’s shoes that were readily recognizable to a lay witness. Accordingly, the trial court’s finding that Crown’s testimony did not constitute expert opinion was not manifestly unreasonable, arbitrary, or unfair. Finally, the discovery violation did not result in reversible error because the content of the CBI report was presented through Crown’s testimony. The judgment was affirmed.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.