Court Opinion

ID: 9793228
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:44:43.240772+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:04:00.980348
License: Public Domain

Justice LOHR
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent to the majority’s conclusion that the trial court’s failure to determine on the record whether Tyler effectively waived his right to testify at trial does not require that his judgment of conviction be reversed. See maj. op. at 142. As set forth below, I disagree with the majority’s reliance on our decision in Roelker v. People, 804 P.2d 1336 (Colo.1991), as support for this conclusion. I also dissent to the majority’s holding that the prosecution established a prima facie case of waiver. I would therefore reverse the judgment of the court of appeals affirming Tyler’s conviction.
I
In People v. Curtis, 681 P.2d 504, 509-11, 514-15 (Colo.1984), we concluded that a defendant’s right to testify at trial is a fundamental right embedded in the due process clauses of both the United States Constitution, amend. XIV, and the Colorado Constitution, art. II, § 25, and that any waiver of this right must be voluntary, knowing, and intentional. We also determined that procedural safeguards are necessary to ensure that this important right will be given effect. Id. at 514-15. Based on the principles that courts must not presume that defendants acquiesce in any loss of their fundamental constitutional rights and that all reasonable presumptions must be indulged against finding waivers of such rights, we concluded that trial judges must determine in each case, on the record, whether a defendant has effectively waived the right to testify. Id.
In Roelker, 804 P.2d 1336, we were presented with the question of whether the trial judge complied with the requirements set forth in Curtis in finding that the defendant effectively waived this constitutional right. The majority in Roelker1 first reviewed our decision in Curtis and reacknowledged the principle that “the trial judge has the responsibility to determine on the record whether the accused has effectively waived his right to testify.” Id. at 1338. However, after determining that “Curtis did not decide what the minimum requirements are to establish a waiver of a defendant’s right to testify in his own defense,” the majority concluded that a trial judge does not need to question the defendant personally on the record as to whether his waiver is truly voluntary. Id. at 1339.
The majority in Roelker then proceeded to assess whether the evidence supported what it characterized as “the trial court’s determination that Roelker effectively *145waived his right to testify.”2 Id. The majority held that the determination “was supported by competent evidence in the record.” Id. Specifically, it pointed to the existence of an adequate Curtis advisement, an acknowledgment by the defendant on the record that he understood his right to testify and the consequences of invoking that right, evidence that the defense counsel advised the judge in a bench conference after the prosecution rested that he and the defendant had decided not to present any testimony, and the lack of any objection by the defendant either when the judge reiterated that decision on the record in the defendant’s presence or when the defendant’s attorney announced that the defense would not present evidence and would rest. Id. The majority in Roelker correctly recognized the need for a judicial finding of effective waiver pursuant to our decision in Curtis and that its role on review was to assess whether that determination was supported by competent evidence in the record. Thus, although the majority concluded in Roelker that Curtis did not require the trial judge to explore with the defendant on the record whether he wished to waive his right to testify, it continued to recognize the obligation of trial judges to make specific on-the-record determinations that defendants have effectively waived that right.
In today’s decision, the majority abolishes this requirement and considers Roelker as support for affirming Tyler’s judgment of conviction. See maj. op. at 142-43. However, in contrast to the situation presented in Roelker, the record before us contains no finding by the trial court that Tyler effectively waived his right to testify, and the majority makes no contention that such a finding exists. Rather, it holds that the prosecution satisfied its burden of showing an effective waiver of this right on the basis that a Curtis advisement had been given and that Tyler “chose to remain silent when his defense counsel rested, and never expressed a desire to testify.” Maj. op. at 143. By proceeding in this fashion and considering only whether the prosecution met its burden of establishing a prima facie case of waiver and whether the defendant presented evidence to rebut such a finding, the majority holds, contrary to the requirement that we set forth in Curtis and subsequently acknowledged in Roelker, that a trial judge need not make an on-the-record determination that a defendant voluntarily, knowingly, and intentionally waived his right to testify at trial. There is no support for this leap in our previous case law.
II
I also disagree with the majority’s holding that the prosecution presented a prima facie case of waiver by establishing that the defendant received a Curtis advisement and never expressed a desire to testify. “Prima facie evidence is evidence sufficient to establish a given fact and which, if not rebutted or contradicted, will remain sufficient.” People v. Anadale, 674 P.2d 372, 373 n. 3 (Colo.1984); accord, e.g., People v. Afentul, 773 P.2d 1081, 1084 (Colo.1989). What I said in dissent in Roelker is even more true of the skeletal evidence on which the majority constructs a prima facie case of waiver here:
The majority constructs a waiver from the defendant’s silence in the face of the announcements by defense counsel and the court that no evidence would be presented on behalf of the defendant. This is inconsistent with the settled law that courts indulge every reasonable presumption against waiver of fundamental constitutional rights. See Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. [458,] 464, 58 S.Ct. [1019,] 1023, [82 L.Ed. 1461 (1938)]; Curtis, 681 P.2d at 514. Waiver of the fundamental right to testify, which is personal to the defendant, cannot be in*146ferred from silence in the face of a declaration by defense counsel that the right has been waived. Compare Palmer [v. People], 680 P.2d [525,] 527 [(Colo.1984) ] (a record of silence by the defendant when defense counsel asserts that the defendant will not testify is insufficient to demonstrate waiver under Curtis) with People v. Fonda, 712 P.2d 1067, 1069 (Colo.App.1985) (trial court’s questioning of both defense counsel and the defendant, on the record, to determine if waiver of the right to testify is knowing, voluntary and intentional satisfies Curtis). This record contains no competent evidence to support a finding that the defendant voluntarily, knowingly and intentionally waived the fundamental constitutional right to testify on his own behalf.
Roelker, 804 P.2d at 1342.
Ill
Additionally, based on the absence of any factual finding by the trial court as to whether Tyler made a voluntary, knowing, and intentional waiver, I assume it to be implicit in the majority opinion that the effectiveness of a defendant’s waiver is an issue that may be raised in a post-trial motion and resolved in a subsequent evi-dentiary hearing. This, however, was one of the specific consequences that we sought to avoid in Curtis when we set forth the requirement that trial judges must advise defendants on the record as to their right to testify and must determine the effectiveness of any purported waiver of this right. See Curtis, 681 P.2d at 515 (in requiring an on-the-record inquiry and determination concerning the waiver of the right to testify to avoid the potential that the validity of a waiver could not be proved at a later hearing because of the passage of time and defects in memories as to what a defendant had been told, we stated that “[t]he alternative not only increases the chance of error, but is wasteful of judicial resources as well.”). This reinforces my view that the direction taken by the court today is ill advised.
Because I believe that our reasoning in Curtis was based on sound principles, I cannot agree with the majority’s disposition of the waiver issue in this case. I dissent and would reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and remand the case for a new trial.
KIRSHBAUM, J., joins parts I and III of this dissent.

. I dissented in Roelker and continue to adhere to the views expressed in that dissent. See Roelker, 804 P.2d at 1340-42 (Lohr, J., dissenting).

. This characterization was based on a statement made by the trial judge that " ‘the record should reflect that [defense counsel] advised the court at a bench conference after the People had rested that he and the defendant elected not to present any testimony.’” Roelker, 804 P.2d at 1338. In my dissent in Roelker I took the position, which I continue to believe to be correct, that this statement cannot be read as a “ ‘determination,’ explicit or implicit, that the defendant voluntarily and understandingly waived his right to testify." Id. at 1342.