Opinion ID: 2622422
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Doctrine of Forfeiture by Wrongdoing

Text: We announce today in Vasquez that where (1) a witness is unavailable; (2) the defendant was involved in, or responsible for, procuring the unavailability of the witness; and (3) the defendant acted with the intent to deprive the criminal justice system of evidence, the defendant then forfeits his right to confront the witness in all proceedings in which the witness's statements are otherwise admissible. Vasquez, No. 07SC50, op. 173 P.3d at 1101. In order to establish forfeiture, these elements must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence in an evidentiary hearing outside the presence of the jury. Id. The forfeiture applies to confrontation rights under both federal and state constitutions. Id. In accordance with these standards, we affirm the court of appeals' holding that Pena forfeited his right of confrontation in this case. [5] Appellate review of a possible Confrontation Clause violation is de novo. Bernal v. People, 44 P.3d 184, 198 (Colo. 2002). Adjudicated facts from the murder proceeding establish that Pena killed the victim with the motive to silence her as a witness. Furthermore, the verdict in the murder trial, rendered beyond a reasonable doubt, more than satisfies the preponderance of the evidence standard required for a finding of forfeiture in this case. Finally, in light of the murder verdict and the requisite finding of intent, the absence of a pretrial evidentiary hearing to address the forfeiture issue constitutes harmless error.