Opinion ID: 1129992
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Trial Court Rulings Relating to Witnesses

Text: In denying Rodriguez' Crim.P. 35(c) motion, the district court characterized five of Rodriguez' claims as attacks on the credibility of prosecution witnesses and held that, under Taylor v. People, 155 Colo. 15, 392 P.2d 294 (1964), such claims did not allege errors of constitutional magnitude. In Issue 35, Rodriguez contends that the district court erroneously applied Taylor to dispose of claims which asserted constitutional questions and did not merely attack the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. In Issues 36, 37, 38, 39, and 40 Rodriguez individually reasserts five claims relating to the testimony of Patricia Thomas which the district court disposed of under Taylor. Rodriguez' claims allege that the trial court denied him his constitutional right to cross-examine and confront witnesses and assert more than a mere attack on the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. In part III of this opinion, we denied Issues 37 and 40 because Rodriguez failed to adequately specify the errors and grounds for postconviction relief. We address the substantive arguments contained in Issues 36, 38, and 39.
In Issue 36, Rodriguez contends that the prosecution and the trial court illegally granted Patricia Thomas absolute immunity from prosecution. [39] A defendant lacks standing to contest the propriety of a grant of immunity to a witness. United States v. Trammel, 583 F.2d 1166, 1168 (10th Cir.1978), aff'd, 445 U.S. 40, 100 S.Ct. 906, 63 L.Ed.2d 186 (1980); United States v. Rauhoff, 525 F.2d 1170, 1178 (7th Cir.1975). Accordingly, we reject this claim.
In Issue 38, Rodriguez claims that the trial court's restriction on defense counsel's cross-examination and impeachment of Patricia Thomas violated his due process rights. The trial court has discretion to determine the scope and limits of cross-examination, and, absent an abuse of discretion, the court's rulings will not be disturbed on appeal. People v. Walker, 666 P.2d 113, 122-23 (Colo.1983). Our review of the trial court's rulings on the scope of defense counsel's cross-examination of Patricia Thomas fails to reveal any abuse of discretion, and, accordingly, we reject Issue 38.
In Issue 39, Rodriguez claims that the trial court's granting of the prosecution's Motion in Limine re: Proper Impeachment of Patricia Thomas constitutes reversible error. The prosecution's motion in limine requested suppression of the following evidence: (1) Thomas' conviction in Denver County Court for second-degree motor vehicle theft; (2) Thomas' alleged recantation of a statement given to Denver Police in a juvenile burglary case; (3) the granting of a personal recognizance bond to Thomas when she was incarcerated for failure to appear on a traffic case; (4) Thomas' juvenile record; (5) Thomas' psychiatric background; and (6) an accusation by Rodriguez that Thomas stole jewelry from Lorraine Martelli. R., v. 3 at 471-73. The trial court granted the motion in limine as to evidence concerning Thomas' juvenile record and psychiatric background, subject to reconsideration if Rodriguez demonstrated either the relevance of such evidence at trial or bias on the part of the district attorney's office relating to Thomas. R., v. 4 at 128-29. The trial court denied each of the remaining requests for suppression. Id. Here, Rodriguez contends that the district court's granting of the motion in limine prevented effective cross-examination and impeachment of Thomas and thereby prevented the jury from being apprised of her true motives and biases. However, he fails to show how the suppression of Thomas' juvenile record and psychiatric background substantially affected his fundamental right to cross-examine and confront Thomas. We therefore conclude that the trial court properly exercised its discretion in partially granting the prosecution's motion in limine. See People v. Snyder, 874 P.2d 1076, 1080 (Colo.1994) (stating that trial court's determination on admissibility of evidence will not be overturned absent an abuse of discretion).
In Issue 95, Rodriguez claims that the trial court committed prejudicial error by refusing to allow the jail psychiatrist, Dr. Kathy Morall, to testify. Defense counsel Eisner asked the court whether it would allow him to call Dr. Morall to testify as to the prescription drugs taken by Rodriguez at the time of trial, the effect of the drugs on Rodriguez' demeanor, and that she prescribed the drugs because Rodriguez was anxious. R., v. 34 at 145-148. [40] Id. The record contradicts Rodriguez' claim that the trial court refused to allow Dr. Morall to testify. Rather, the trial court stated: I am not saying she can't testify, but I am just saying that [the prosecution] then [has] a right to cross-examine her. Id. at 147. We find no prejudicial error and reject Issue 95.
In Issue 30, Rodriguez contends that the trial court unjustifiably refused to grant a continuance to allow Rodriguez to call David Martinez as a witness. We conclude that Rodriguez' argument is meritless. On December 9, 1986, Rodriguez called Martinez as a defense witness. R., v. 29 at 109-112. Martinez invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Id. The trial court released Martinez after being advised by Rodriguez' counsel that they did not want to further call him as a witness. See R., v. 30 at 108. Contrary to Rodriguez' misrepresentations on this appeal, the record shows that, subsequent to the time the court released Martinez, Rodriguez did not move the court for a continuance in order to allow Martinez to further testify. Accordingly, we reject Issue 30. In Issue 31, Rodriguez asserts that the trial court erroneously denied his motion for a continuance to secure the attendance of Sam Cruz, who allegedly would have testified that the knife admitted into evidence as the weapon used to kill Lorraine Martelli was the same knife he gave Patricia Thomas as a birthday present. Rodriguez claims that Cruz would have impeached Thomas' testimony that she had never seen the knife before Rodriguez used it to kill Lorraine Martelli. Rodriguez subpoenaed Cruz as a witness, and Cruz failed to appear. See R., v. 30 at 98. Rodriguez moved for a continuance to secure Cruz' attendance and also requested that the trial court allow defense investigators to testify as to statements made by Cruz in the event the court denied the motion for continuance. Id. The prosecution objected to the motion for continuance on the ground that Cruz' testimony would be cumulative of the testimony presented by Mary Compos at trial. Id. at 100. On direct examination by Robin Desmond, Compos testified as follows: DESMOND: [I]n September of 1984, did you attend a birthday party for Patricia Thomas? COMPOS: Yes. Id. at 57. DESMOND: In September of 1984, did Patricia Thomas receive a knife for her birthday? COMPOS: Yes. She did. DESMOND: Did she show it to you? COMPOS: Yes. Id. at 58. DESMOND: Mary, I am going to hand you what has been marked as People's Exhibit C-1. [41] Have you ever seen that knife before? COMPOS: Yes. DESMOND: Where? COMPOS: At [Patricia Thomas'] party. DESMOND: Who showed it to you? COMPOS: She did. DESMOND: How do you know that's the same knife? COMPOS: By the name of it and what it looks like. DESMOND: What do you mean by the name of it? COMPOS: It says Tiger on it. Id. at 59 (footnote added). The prosecution also objected to defense investigators testifying as to Cruz' statements because such testimony would constitute hearsay. Id. at 99. The trial court denied Rodriguez' motion for a continuance and his alternative request to have the investigators testify as to Cruz' statements. Id. at 101. The granting or denying of a motion for continuance lies within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be overturned on appeal unless the record reflects a clear abuse of that discretion. People v. Wells, 776 P.2d 386, 389 (Colo.1989); Miller v. People, 178 Colo. 397, 399-400, 497 P.2d 992, 993 (1972). Here, Cruz' testimony would merely have been cumulative to Compos' testimony at trial. Rodriguez fails to show that the trial court's denial of his motion for continuance prevented him from effectively impeaching Thomas, and, accordingly, we conclude that the district court properly exercised its discretion. Rodriguez also contests the trial court's denial of his request to introduce Cruz' statements through the testimony of defense investigators. The admission of evidence falls within the trial court's discretion and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion. People v. Ibarra, 849 P.2d 33, 38 (Colo.1993). To show an abuse of discretion, an appellant must establish that, under the circumstances, the trial court's decision to reject the evidence was manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable, or unfair. Id. Here, the trial court reasonably concluded that the introduction of Cruz' statements through defense investigators would violate the prohibition against hearsay, see C.R.E. 802, and, accordingly, we find no error.
In Issue 96, Rodriguez contends that the trial court erroneously refused his request to call District Attorney Mike Little as a witness. We reject this claim. At trial, the prosecution introduced letters from Rodriguez to his girlfriend, Margie Marquez, another prisoner at the jail, in which Rodriguez admitted that he killed Lorraine Martelli. People v. Rodriguez, 794 P.2d 965, 970 (Colo.1990) ( Rodriguez IV ), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1055, 111 S.Ct. 770, 112 L.Ed.2d 789 (1991). In 1985, Marquez had two separate felony theft cases pending and was represented by Deputy Public Defender David Joyce. Rodriguez v. District Court, 719 P.2d 699, 701 (Colo.1986) ( Rodriguez I ). Without Joyce's knowledge, Marquez met with Deputy District Attorneys Mike Little and Mike Kane and informed them that she had letters which incriminated Rodriguez in the murder and kidnapping of Lorraine Martelli. Id. At a hearing in connection with Marquez' felony theft cases, Little informed Joyce that a possible conflict of interest had developed between Marquez and the public defender's office because Marquez had initiated contact with the district attorney's office. Id. However, Little did not inform Joyce why Marquez had initiated the contact. Id. Joyce requested and was allowed to withdraw as counsel for Marquez in the theft cases. Id. Marquez later delivered the incriminating letters to the district attorney's office. Id. At the guilt phase of Rodriguez' trial, Marquez testified that Rodriguez wrote her the letters and that, in doing so, he intended to give Marquez the opportunity to present the letters to Little in exchange for the reduction or dismissal of the theft charges pending against her. R., v. 30 at 69-73. The record reflects the following exchange on cross-examination of Marquez by Silverman: SILVERMAN: You know this lady over here, Ms. Robin Desmond? MARQUEZ: Yes. EISNER: Can we approach the bench? THE COURT: Yes. (Whereupon, the following was had at the bench between the Court and counsel.) EISNER: I anticipate he is trying to go into the fact David Joyce and Robin Desmond are public defenders and work in the same law firm. I don't think, Your Honor, that is relevant. SILVERMAN: I will not bring up the fact they're public defenders, but I will bring out the fact they work together at the same law firm. THE COURT: Do you have any objection? EISNER: No. Id. at 128-29. During further cross-examination of Marquez, Silverman did not bring out the fact that Joyce and Desmond were both public defenders. Id. at 129. After the trial court excused Marquez as a witness, defense counsel Desmond told the court that she wanted to call Little as a witness to rebut the prosecution's insinuation that Joyce and Desmond impermissibly colluded to form a theory which explained why Rodriguez wrote the incriminating letters to Marquez. Id. at 164-65. Desmond sought to elicit testimony from Little that Marquez' counsel did not know that Marquez arranged to turn the letters over to the district attorney's office. Id. The trial court told Desmond that it would deny any attempt to call Little as a witness. Id. In our view, the record does not support Rodriguez' contention that the prosecution created a false impression of collusion between Desmond and Joyce. Silverman merely elicited testimony from Marquez that Desmond and Joyce worked in the same law firm, and Eisner explicitly stated that he had no objection to such a question. Id. at 129. Furthermore, Silverman specifically asked Marquez whether Joyce had knowledge of the plan between Marquez and Rodriguez to turn Rodriguez' incriminating letters over to Little to secure a reduction or dismissal of Marquez' theft cases; Marquez answered that her attorney did not know of such a plan. Id. Finally, Rodriguez had the opportunity on redirect examination to elicit testimony from Marquez rebutting any inference of collusion which had been created by the prosecution, but failed to do so. We conclude that the trial court's refusal to allow Rodriguez to call Little as a witness did not affect Rodriguez' substantial rights.