Court Opinion

ID: 9746995
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 14:51:22.301425+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:19.140079
License: Public Domain

Judge TAUBMAN
dissenting.
I agree with the majority's analysis, except its conclusion that the prosecution's actions that improperly shifted the burden of proof to defendant did not constitute constitutional harmless error. See Crider v. People, 186 P.3d 39, 42 (Colo.2008) (reviewing court must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of lack of prejudicial impact resulting from constitutional error). Because of the inculpatory evidence against defendant addressed in part II of the majority opinion concerning defendant's motion for acquittal, I would conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying his various motions for mistrial. That evidence, which included defendant's statement to the second police officer that he had purchased crack cocaine from the individuals in the house four times within a week's time and prior to his arrest, dispels any doubt in my mind regarding the likelihood defendant would have been convicted, even if the prosecution had not elicited testimony from defendant's expert that he had not performed tests on the alleged crack cocaine and the prosecutor had not mentioned this during his closing argument.
I would conclude that there is no reasonable possibility that the evidence complained of and the prosecutor's reference to it in his closing argument might have contributed to defendant's conviction. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.