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

Document:
The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in People v. Sparks on Thursday, January 11, 2018.
Sexual Assault—Child—Prosecutorial Misconduct—Sufficiency of Evidence—Hearsay—Jury Instructions—Video Interview of Defendant.
Sparks attended a party at his wife’s cousin’s house. The cousin’s daughter, A.M., reported that while she was at the party and Skyping on her computer, Sparks touched her breast over her clothing. She also reported that as she was Skyping, her friend S.F. (the victim) and Sparks were behind her, and that through her computer’s camera she saw the victim grabbing Sparks’s groin area and making other movements. At the time, A.M. was 14 and the victim was 13. Sparks admitted to what A.M. reported and to touching the victim’s groin, breast, and bottom area. Sparks was convicted of one count of sexual assault on a child as to the victim.
On appeal, Sparks contended that the prosecutor engaged in misconduct by misstating the law and evidence during closing argument. Specifically, Sparks asserted it was error for the prosecutor to tell the jury that it did not matter that the victim initiated the sexual contact, arguing that C.R.S. § 18-3-405(1), the sexual assault on a child statute, required the prosecution to prove that he caused the victim to become subservient or subordinate or that the child victim initiated the sexual contact at his directive. Sexual contact includes the touching of the defendant’s intimate parts by the victim. The phrase “subjects another . . . to any sexual contact” in the statute does not require the People to prove that defendant caused the child-victim to become “subservient or subordinate” or that the child-victim initiated the sexual contact at defendant’s directive. There was no error in the prosecutor’s statement to the jury.
Sparks also argued that the prosecutor misstated the evidence by saying A.M. saw improper sexual contact between the victim and Sparks through a computer camera while on Skype and that Sparks knew exactly how old the victim was. As discussed below, the court did not err in admitting this evidence, and given this evidence, the prosecutor did not misstate nor draw improper inferences from it.
Sparks further contended that the prosecution failed to produce sufficient evidence to prove that he committed sexual assault on a child because the only evidence as to the victim’s age was inadmissible. He contended that the court erred in admitting the detective’s and A.M.’s testimony and Sparks’s interview statement about the victim’s age because these were hearsay. All of this evidence was admitted without objection. A.M.’s testimony may have been based on her personal knowledge or the victim’s reputed age, and thus would not have been hearsay or would have fallen within a hearsay exception. Thus, the trial court’s ruling on A.M.’s testimony was not erroneous, much less obviously so. Similarly, the basis for the detective’s testimony could not be determined, but the court of appeals could not conclude that the trial court’s admission of this testimony was obviously erroneous. And even assuming that admitting this testimony was obvious error, such error would be harmless in light of A.M.’s testimony and Sparks’s interview statement. CRE 805 does not apply to Sparks’s interview admission because as a party opponent his statement does not require firsthand knowledge to be admissible. It was not plain error to admit the evidence, and it was sufficient.
Sparks also asserted that the court abused its discretion by instructing the jury that it could assign his interview video any weight it wanted when the court provided the video to the jury during deliberations. The court did not instruct the jury to give Sparks’s statements any weight it wanted. Further, no special protections against undue emphasis as to a defendant’s out-of-court statements were required. Lastly, the court provided specific instructions for the jury to follow in viewing the evidence, and thus appropriately exercised its discretion.
Sparks further contended that the trial court denied him his constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel by providing his interview video to the jury during deliberations without notifying his counsel. The court agreed, but concluded this error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in People v. Cockrell on Thursday, October 5, 2017.
The victim was shot 11 times and was found by bystanders, who asked him questions. The victim answered their questions but did not provide the shooter’s name. On the way to the hospital, the victim identified Cockrell as the shooter to an officer who rode in the ambulance. The victim died soon thereafter during surgery. No DNA, fingerprint, or other forensic evidence tied Cockrell to the victim’s murder. The primary evidence against him was the victim’s dying declaration identifying Cockrell as the shooter and a bystander’s statement that he saw a car leaving the area around the same time the victim was found that matched the description of the car Cockrell drove. The trial court denied Cockrell’s motion to suppress the dying declaration and to find C.R.S. § 13-25-119 unconstitutional. Cockrell was found guilty of first degree murder and two crime of violence sentence enhancers.
On appeal, Cockrell contended that C.R.S. § 13-25-119, the dying declaration statute, is unconstitutional on its face because it violates the Confrontation Clause. Dying declarations are an exception to the hearsay rule because of their guarantee of trustworthiness, and precluding their admission would in many cases result in a failure of justice. The court of appeals held that dying declarations are an exception to the Confrontation Clause and the dying declaration statute is constitutional.
Cockrell also contended that the victim’s statement did not satisfy the statutory requirements for admission of dying declarations. The first statutory requirement was satisfied because the parties agreed that the victim believed he was going to die; he had 11 gunshot wounds and death was imminent, and he made statements indicating he feared he was going to die. As to the other three requirements, Cockrell argued that (1) the statements were not voluntary; (2) the statements were made in response to questions calculated to lead the deceased to make the particular statement; and (3) the victim was not of sound mind when he made the statements. However, the record supports the trial court’s finding that (1) the victim’s statements were voluntarily made; (2) the questions asked of the victim were designed to gather facts with no apparent pretense; and (3) although the victim was in a great deal of pain and had trouble breathing, he was conscious and alert and answered questions appropriately, and thus was of sound mind when he identified Cockrell as his shooter.
Lastly, Cockrell contended that there was insufficient evidence to support his first degree murder conviction. Based on the evidence presented, it was rational for the jury to have found Cockrell guilty as charged.
The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in Nicholls v. People on Monday, June 19, 2017.
Criminal Trials—Right of Accused to Confront Witnesses—Exceptions to Hearsay Rule—Statements Against Interest.
In light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s holding in Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (2006), the Colorado Supreme Court held that nontestimonial hearsay statements do not implicate a defendant’s state constitutional right to confrontation, overruling Compan v. People, 121 P.3d 876 (Colo. 2005), which held otherwise. Because the hearsay statements at issue in this case were nontestimonial, they did not implicate Colorado’s Confrontation Clause, and the court of appeals did not err in concluding that defendant’s confrontation right was not violated. The court further held that the third requirement for the admission of inculpatory hearsay statements against interest, announced in People v. Newton, 966 P.2d 563, 576 (Colo. 1998) (requiring corroborating circumstances to demonstrate the statement’s trustworthiness), is not constitutionally required for nontestimonial statements against interest. To admit a third party’s nontestimonial statements against interest under the version of CRE 804(b)(3) that existed at the time of defendant’s 2008 trial, only two conditions needed to be satisfied: (1) the witness must have been unavailable, and (2) the statement must have tended to subject the declarant to criminal liability. The court concluded that the third party’s nontestimonial statements against interest satisfied these two requirements, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting these statements as a statement against interest under CRE 804(b)(3), as that rule existed at the time of defendant’s trial. Finally, the court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting testimony about defendant’s response to the death of her second child because the testimony was relevant and not unduly prejudicial; nor did the trial court plainly err in admitting testimony about the cause of the second child’s death because the brief, isolated statements did not so undermine the trial’s fairness as to cast serious doubt on the reliability of defendant’s conviction. Accordingly, the court of appeals’ judgment was affirmed.
The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in United States v. Henry on Friday, February 3, 2017. Panel rehearing was granted for the sole purpose of adding a footnote; that opinion is available here.
Tremale Henry finished a prison sentence for violating federal drug laws and was under supervised release for five years thereafter. During his five year supervised release, Mr. Henry was found by the district court to be responsible for two separate assaults with a dangerous weapon. The district court sentenced Mr. Henry to a 24-month prison term followed by six further years of supervised release. Mr. Henry argues that the district court impermissibly relied on hearsay when reaching its judgment.
The Tenth Circuit first addressed Mr. Henry’s first assault charge. In finding that Mr. Henry committed this assault, the district court relied on statements from a witness, Candace Ramsey. Ms. Ramsey testified that she saw Mr. Henry lunge at his victim with a small object, but that she could not see exactly what that object was. A probation officer then testified that Ms. Ramsey told him before the hearing that she saw Mr. Henry use a knife. The district court apparently credited this hearsay. Additionally, the district court relied on a surveillance video that showed Mr. Henry make rapid movements towards the victim. Although the video quality was poor and a knife could not clearly visible, the district court found that the reaction of the victim was consistent with a violent assault with a dangerous weapon. The district court found that all of these facts taken together established that Mr. Henry committed the first assault with a dangerous weapon.
The Tenth Circuit held that neither Rule 32.1(b)(2)(C) nor Jones was applicable with regard to the first instance of the assault charge because the witness was available for cross-examination. Ms. Ramsey did appear at the hearing and Mr. Henry had the chance to question her about her hearsay statement. Additionally, Mr. Henry did not provide evidence to establish that his minimal due process rights were violated.
The Tenth Circuit next addressed the second assault charge, which consisted of the stabbing of the victim. The district court relied on out-of-court statements that the victim and the victim’s girlfriend made to a police detective. That detective then relayed the statements to Mr. Henry’s probation officer. Mr. Henry’s probation officer presented these statements at the revocation hearing, but neither the victim, his girlfriend, nor the detective was subject to cross-examination. Therefore, the Tenth Circuit held that Rule 32.1(b)(2)(C) and Jones did apply to this assault charge, and that the district court failed to conduct the balancing test Jones required.
The Tenth Circuit held that the district courts failure to apply the relevant tests was not a harmless error. The Tenth Circuit came to this conclusion because it determined that the district court considered both assault charges when it fashioned its sentence. Therefore, the error was not harmless and the Tenth Circuit remanded the case back to the district court for resentencing.
The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in People v. Flores-Lozano on Thursday, October 20, 2016.
Maria Guadalupe Flores-Lozano was a manager at a fast-food chain. The fast-food chain’s loss prevention director noticed that Flores-Lozano was giving a high number of discounts to customers and suspected that she was pocketing the difference between the amount the customer paid and the discount. He prepared a spreadsheet showing 4400 transactions in which Flores-Lozano gave discounts on cash transactions, calculating the total amount of the suspected theft at $23,320.01. The loss prevention director confronted Flores-Lozano with the spreadsheet and still photos from the chain’s surveillance video, and she admitted she had been stealing from the company. The loss prevention director contacted the police, and Flores-Lozano was charged with theft of over $20,000.
The sole issue at trial was the amount of the theft. The People argued Flores-Lozano should be charged with the total amount calculated by the loss prevention director, but Flores-Lozano countered she should only be charged with the specific instances in which she had admitted guilt, which amounted to less than $500. The trial court disagreed with both parties and ultimately found Flores-Lozano guilty of the lesser included offense of theft of more than $1,000 but less than $20,000.
On appeal, Flores-Lozano contended that the spreadsheet prepared by the loss prevention director constituted impermissible hearsay. The Colorado Court of Appeals concluded that it did contain hearsay, but was admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule, CRE 803(6). The court analyzed the five factors of CRE 803(6) and found that the spreadsheet satisfied all the factors. First, the data contained in the spreadsheet was automatically generated at the point of sale. Second, the spreadsheet was prepared by the loss prevention director, a person who indisputably had knowledge of the matters contained in the spreadsheet. Next, the third, fourth, and fifth factors were satisfied by the loss prevention director’s testimony that he regularly conducted investigations of theft within the restaurant chain and regularly prepared and kept spreadsheets of the records in the course of his investigations. The court found that the spreadsheet was properly admitted. Although the loss prevention director testified that he prepared the spreadsheet for litigation, the court was entitled to disregard his testimony.
The judgment was affirmed. Judge Bernard wrote a special concurrence; he would have found that all of the data contained in the spreadsheet was made in the regular course of business.

References: v. 
 § 18
 v. 
 § 13
 § 13
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.