Court Opinion

ID: 9625928
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 07:56:24.834948+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:06:17.643773
License: Public Domain

Judge NEY
dissenting.
I agree with the majority that neither the asserted instances of prosecutorial misconduct nor the Curtis advisement require a reversal of the defendant’s conviction. However, I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the mandate of Harper v. People, 817 P.2d 77 (Colo.1991) is limited to media reports and not applicable to prejudicial comments made in the courtroom during trial. I would not interpret Harper that narrowly. Accordingly, I dissent from the affirmance of the judgment of conviction.
I believe that Harper v. People, supra, is equally relevant to determining the possible prejudice resulting from a jury’s exposure to inadmissible information in the courtroom as it is to exposure to media reports during a *261trial. I would therefore consider it mandatory for the trial court to determine if the jury overheard the comment, and, if so, if that comment, consisting of a reference to a conviction of a similar offense which the trial court had previously ordered excluded, was prejudicial.
Accordingly, because the trial court did not conduct the three part test mandated by Harper v. People, supra, I would reverse defendant’s conviction and remand for a new trial.