Court Opinion

ID: 9633772
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 11:59:23.617387+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:11:14.003635
License: Public Domain

Judge PLANK
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent.
Section 13-25-129(2), C.R.S. (1987 Repl. Vol. 6A) requires the trial court to give a specific cautionary instruction with the admission of hearsay evidence. Additional procedural safeguards are required by People v. McClure, 779 P.2d 864 (Colo.1989) and People v. Mathes, 703 P.2d 608 (Colo. App.1985). The McClure court held:
“In recognition of the suspect nature of hearsay evidence, and in obedience to the legislative mandate, we hold that a trial court must give the cautionary instruction contemporaneously with the admission of this particular type of evidence, and again in the court’s general charge to the jury at the conclusion of the case, and failure to do so is reversible error.” (emphasis in original)
Here, two expert witnesses, a doctor and an investigator, both with extensive experience in child sexual assault cases, related details of the crime. The ommission of the contemporaneous instruction under these facts constitutes plain error.