May 19, 2019

Colorado Supreme Court: Jury Instruction Defining “Hesitate to Act” Did Not Lower Prosecution’s Burden of Proof

The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in Johnson v. People on Monday, March 11, 2019.

Jury Instructions—Reasonable Doubt—Burden of Proof—Due Process.

In this case, the supreme court considered whether the trial court’s jury instruction defining “hesitate to act” lowered the prosecution’s burden of proof in violation of due process. The court held that the instruction did not lower the prosecution’s burden of proof in violation of due process. Because the instruction was nonsensical, given only once during voir dire, not referenced by either party at any time, and flanked by the proper instruction regarding the burden of proof at the beginning and end of trial, there is not a reasonable likelihood that the jury understood the instruction and applied it in a manner that lowered the prosecution’s burden.

Summary provided courtesy of Colorado Lawyer.

Colorado Court of Appeals: Defense Counsel’s Error in Declining to Object to Inapplicable Jury Instruction Amounted to Forfeiture

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in People v. Ramirez on Thursday, February 7, 2019.

Criminal Law—Jury Instructions—Waiver—Forfeiture.

Defendant was convicted in one trial of charges stemming from four consolidated criminal cases. This case was remanded from the Supreme Court to reconsider the disposition of the conviction for first degree assault in light of People v. Rediger, 2018 CO 32.

On remand, Ramirez argued that the trial court’s jury instruction on deadly physical force, which related to the charges of first degree assault, second degree assault, and third degree assault, was improper. It was error for the court to instruct the jury on deadly physical force because defendant was not accused of causing death. By giving an inapplicable instruction and incorporating it into the elemental instruction for first, second, and third degree assault, the court would have caused the jury to have an incorrect understanding of the elements of those charges. The prior court of appeals’ division concluded that Ramirez had waived his contention of instructional error because his defense counsel stated he believed the instruction to be “a correct statement of the law,” and therefore declined to consider it. Defense counsel apparently lacked awareness of the error. Under these circumstances, the court could not conclude that counsel intentionally relinquished a known right on defendant’s behalf. Here, defense counsel’s error in declining to object to the jury instruction amounted to a forfeiture, not a waiver. The trial court committed plain error.

The conviction of first degree assault was reversed and the case was remanded for a new trial solely as to that charge. In all other respects, the judgment was affirmed.

Summary provided courtesy of  Colorado Lawyer.

Annual Update to Colorado Model Criminal Jury Instructions Released

On Tuesday, January 29, 2019, the Colorado State Judicial Branch announced the release of the Colorado Supreme Court’s annual update to the Model Jury Instructions for Criminal Trials. The update incorporates new legislation and published case law that has been announced since the last update. The update includes revisions to the instructions concerning complicity and judicial notice.

The Model Jury Instructions for Criminal Trials are available here for download in PDF and Microsoft Word format. For questions concerning the Model Jury Instructions for Criminal Trials, email the committee.

Colorado Court of Appeals: Defendant Charged with Criminal Mischief Entitled to Self-Defense Jury Instruction

On Thursday, January 24, 2019, the Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in People v. Coahran.

Criminal Mischief—Affirmative Defense—Self-Defense—Use of Physical Force in Defense of Person.

Coahran and her ex-boyfriend had an argument during which Coahran kicked the ex-boyfriend’s car door, causing damages. Coahran was charged with criminal mischief. She argued in a pretrial conference that she had kicked the door in self-defense. The trial court determined that self-defense wasn’t available for her mischief charge because her use of physical force was directed at physical property rather than a person. Coahran was convicted of criminal mischief and ordered to pay restitution.

On appeal, Coahran asserted that the trial court improperly instructed the jury on self-defense. When an individual uses force to defend herself from the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force, she is allowed to take those actions that are reasonably necessary to do so. Therefore, a defendant charged with criminal mischief may be entitled to a jury instruction on self-defense as an affirmative defense under C.R.S. § 18-1-704(1) where a defendant is charged with a property crime, uses force to defend herself from the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by another, and takes only those actions that are reasonably necessary to do so, whether those actions are upon the other person directly or indirectly. Here, according to Coahran’s testimony, the ex-boyfriend grabbed her wrist when she tried to walk away. She asked the ex-boyfriend twice to let her go, and he refused. Even though they were in a public parking lot, Coahran worried that the situation would escalate, so she kicked the car door in an effort to get away. Under these circumstances, there was sufficient evidence presented to support a self-defense instruction. Because the trial court didn’t properly instruct the jury on self-defense as an affirmative defense, the prosecution didn’t bear the burden of disproving self-defense, and Coahran was deprived of her right to possible acquittal on that ground. The court’s error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Coahran also argued that the evidence was insufficient to support the damage amount necessary to sustain her conviction. The prosecution presented a repair shop estimate and the testimony of the ex-boyfriend and a police officer on the amount of damage to the car door. This evidence was sufficient to sustain Coahran’s conviction of felony mischief, and she may be retried on this charge.

The conviction was reversed, the restitution order was vacated, and the case was remanded for a new trial.

Summary provided courtesy of Colorado Lawyer.

Tenth Circuit: Hobbs Act Robbery is “Crime of Violence” Because Force Element Can Only be Satisfied with Violent Force

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in United States v. Jefferson on Friday, December 28, 2018.

Defendant Jefferson was convicted of five counts of Hobbs Act robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 1951, as well as two counts for brandishing a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A).

On appeal, Jefferson argued that the district court erred when it determined that robbery under § 1951 qualifies as a crime of violence under § 924(c)(3)(A) and that even if it did, the judge erred in directing a verdict on that element and the issue should have been submitted to a jury. Further, the district court erred when it refused to instruct the jury that “force” in § 1951 means “violent force,” and the prosecutor’s closing rebuttal arguments amounted to prosecutorial misconduct and violated his due process rights.

The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court, and held that Hobbs Act robbery categorically qualifies as a “crime of violence,” and that both the district court’s error in failing to instruct the jury that “force” in § 1951 means “violent force” and that the prosecutor’s alleged error during closing rebuttal arguments were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. 

On the issue of whether a crime fits the § 924(c) definition of a “crime of violence,” the Tenth Circuit reiterated its holding in United States v. Morgan, citing that such issue requires an examination of the legal elements of a crime, not an exploration of the underlying facts, and is therefore not a question of fact for a jury, but a question of law for the judge. Therefore, the judge did not err and in fact was obligated not to submit the issue to the jury.

The Tenth Circuit next considered whether Hobbs Act robbery is a “crime of violence” under § 924(c)(3)(A). Section 924(c) calls for increased penalties if a firearm is used or carried “during and in relation to any crime of violence” and defines “crime of violence” as a felony offense having “as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another.” 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A). In a Hobbs Act robbery, one element the government must prove is the use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear of injury.

Jefferson argued Hobbs Act robbery is not a “crime of violence” because force is a means of committing the crime, not an element of the crime. The Tenth Circuit agreed that force is a means of committing the crime, but disagreed that this determination ended the inquiry as to whether a statute “has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another.” Instead, the determination of whether statutory alternatives are elements or means is only important in deciding whether to apply the pure categorical approach or the modified categorical approach. Because the Hobbs Act statute alternatives are means, the pure categorical approach applies. Therefore, the distinction between means and elements only matters if one of the ways to commit Hobbs Act robbery did not involve force, so that a juror could find a defendant guilty irrespective of whether he used force to commit the crime. The Tenth Circuit agreed with the proposition that placing one in fear of injury requires the threatened use of physical force. The Circuit further reasoned that because violence is defined as “the use of physical force so as to injury, abuse, damage, or destroy,” each of the alternatives requires the threatened use of force, Hobbs Act robbery is categorically a “crime of violence” under § 924(c)(3)(A).

On the issue of whether the district court erred in its jury instructions, Jefferson argued that the jury should have been instructed that “force” in Hobbs Act robbery means “violent force.” The Tenth Circuit agreed. However, the error was found to be harmless because the evidence provided uncontroverted proof of “violent force” being used in each robbery. In the first robbery, Jefferson caused actual injury to a person. In the second and third robbery, Jefferson had engaged in a “tug-of-war” with the convenience store clerk and the store’s front door, which had the capacity to cause physical injury or pain to the store clerk. In the fourth and fifth robbery, surveillance videos showed Jefferson pointing a gun to the clerk’s head from a short distance away. Therefore, the district court’s error in failing to instruct the jury that “force” in Hobbs Act robbery means “violent force” was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

On the final issue, Jefferson argued that the prosecutor’s rebuttal closing argument that the “possibility that the gun is fake is not something that [the government has] to overcome” improperly shifted the burden of proof to Jefferson. The Tenth Circuit disagreed, finding that the challenged statements may have misstated the law as to the government’s burden of proof, but the alleged error was harmless because the jury had been correctly instructed and reminded of the government’s burden after closing arguments. Further, the extent and role of the misconduct was minimal—the challenged statements constituted only two sentences of the governments lengthy closing argument and a 4-day trial, and while the prosecutor may have arguably misstated the law, she corrected herself by stating “we do not have to disprove theoretical possibilities that a gun is fake and not real.” Finally, the evidence of guilt was substantial. In light of this, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the alleged error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Colorado Supreme Court: Unique Facts of Case Permit Use of Self-Defense Instruction for Robbery of Taxi Services

The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in People v. DeGreat on Monday, October 15, 2018.

Self-Defense—Aggravated Robbery—Jury Instructions—Affirmative Defenses.

This case required the supreme court to decide whether a division of the court of appeals erred in concluding that the statutory right to self-defense can apply to justify a defendant’s robbery of taxi cab services. On the unique facts presented, the court concluded that the division correctly determined that defendant was entitled to a self-defense instruction as to the aggravated robbery charge, although the court’s reasoning differed from that on which the division relied. The court concluded that defendant presented some credible evidence to allow a reasonable jury to conclude that the robbery of services that he allegedly committed was committed in self-defense. Accordingly, the court affirmed the division’s judgment, albeit based on different reasoning.

Summary provided courtesy of Colorado Lawyer.

Colorado Court of Appeals: Whole Person Impairment Rating Relevant in Non-Workers’ Comp Personal Injury Case

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Herrera v. Lerma on Thursday, September 20, 2018.

Subsequent Accident Jury InstructionPersonal InjuryNegligenceEvidence RelevancyVoir Dire.

Defendant’s truck hit plaintiff’s car from behind as she slowed for traffic. A week later plaintiff was diagnosed with neck strain. The following year, plaintiff was involved in a second car accident in which she hit a car from behind. She testified that the second accident did not injure her.

A year later, plaintiff sought additional medical treatment for her neck and lower back. She sued defendant for negligence, claiming damages of $38,356.46. She was awarded $1,980.81 by a jury in economic damages and zero on her claims of physical impairment and noneconomic damages.

On appeal, plaintiff argued it was error to instruct the jury to consider whether the second accident worsened any injuries, damages, or losses caused by the first accident because defendant hadn’t presented any evidence supporting such an instruction. Here, neither party presented evidence that plaintiff suffered any injury or aggravation of an existing injury because of the second accident, so the evidence was insufficient to justify instructing the jury about the second accident and the trial court abused its discretion. Further, but for the trial court’s improper instruction, the jury might have reached a different verdict.

Plaintiff also argued that the trial court erred by excluding her expert’s testimony about her 15% permanent whole body impairment rating. Before trial, defendant requested that the court exclude testimony about plaintiff’s impairment rating. While it allowed testimony that plaintiff suffered an impairment, the court excluded testimony about the impairment rating as irrelevant under CRE 401 and prejudicial under CRE 403. The court of appeals could not discern any reason that the percentage rating of the impairment would not be relevant, and found reasons why it would be relevant. The court similarly found no support for the trial court’s belief that such testimony would be unfairly prejudicial, confusing, or misleading. The trial court abused its discretion by excluding the testimony.

Plaintiff finally contended that it was error for the trial court to prevent her counsel from asking prospective jurors during voir dire whether they had an interest in defendant’s insurance carrier. Counsel was entitled to ask the insurance question during voir dire to determine the biases and prejudices of the prospective jurors, so the trial court abused its discretion.

The judgment was reversed and the case was remanded.

Summary provided courtesy of Colorado Lawyer.

Colorado Court of Appeals: Error in Denying Defendant His Tendered Self-Defense Instruction Not Harmless

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in People v. Koper on Thursday, September 20, 2018.

Criminal Law—Jury Instructions—Self-Defense—Transferred Intent—Affirmative Defense—Prosecutorial Misconduct.

While at a bar, defendant said something to Abram’s sister that offended Abram. Defendant tried to make amends by offering Abram a beer. Abram responded by punching defendant twice in the face. Defendant then drew his firearm, for which he had a concealed carry permit, and aimed it at Abram. After a short standoff, defendant handed the gun to his fiancée and the two left the bar. A jury found defendant guilty of two counts of felony menacing and prohibited possession of a firearm. The first count of felony menacing named the alleged victim as a security guard who had stepped between defendant and Abram after defendant drew his weapon; the second count named the alleged victim as another bar patron who had been sitting near Abram.

On appeal, defendant contended that the trial court erred in rejecting his jury instructions on the affirmative defense of self-defense. Here, defendant raised credible evidence that he acted in self-defense against Abram. Defendant’s intent to defend himself against Abram would, if the jury believed his testimony, allow the intent as to Abram to transfer to the encounter with the alleged victims. Thus, the trial court erred in rejecting defendant’s jury instructions on self-defense as an affirmative defense to the menacing charges. Further, the error was not harmless because while the defense’s theory of the case instruction referred generally to self-defense, the instruction did not require the prosecution to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.

Defendant also contended that prosecutorial misconduct required reversal of his conviction for possession of a firearm while intoxicated. Here, the prosecutor asked defendant 44 times whether another witness’s testimony was incorrect, wrong, or untrue, or whether the witness had lied; this went beyond asking non-prejudicial questions designed to highlight discrepancies in the evidence. The error was plain and warranted reversal.

The judgment was reversed and the case was remanded for a new trial on all charges.

Summary provided courtesy of Colorado Lawyer.

Colorado Court of Appeals: Closure of Courtroom to Reread Jury Instructions Violated Defendant’s Right to Public Trial

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in People v. Lujan on Thursday, June 12, 2018.

Right to Public Trial—Constitutional Law—Sixth Amendment—Rebuttal—Residual Hearsay Exception—Other Acts Evidence.

The victim, defendant’s live-in girlfriend, was beaten, strangled, and left on the ground outside a friend’s apartment in 1999. In 2013, the People charged defendant with first degree murder. On the first day of trial, defendant conceded that he was responsible for the victim’s death, but he argued that he was guilty only of reckless manslaughter. After jury deliberations had started, the trial judge closed the courtroom to read limiting instructions to the jury, over defendant’s objection. The jury found defendant guilty of second degree (knowing) murder.

On appeal, defendant contended that his conviction must be reversed because closing the courtroom to read limiting instructions upon the jury’s request violated his right to a public trial and his right to be present. A criminal defendant’s right to a public trial is guaranteed by both the U.S. and Colorado Constitutions. Here, the trial court sua sponte excluded all but the jury, the bailiff, the reporter, and itself from the courtroom. In this case, the closure was total, intentional, and unjustified, and defendant’s Sixth Amendment right was violated.

Defendant also contended that the court committed three evidentiary errors. First, a law enforcement officer testified for the People that in all of their interactions, defendant had never seemed upset or remorseful about the victim’s death. Defendant contended that because the prosecution opened the door to his demeanor, and the testimony did not involve hearsay, he was entitled to elicit rebuttal testimony as part of his right to present a defense. Exclusion of the rebuttal testimony was an abuse of discretion because the court misapplied the law in concluding that the evidence was hearsay. On the other hand, the court did not abuse its discretion in admitting statements made by the victim to two witnesses before her death under the residual hearsay exception because the court found that these statements were sufficiently trustworthy. The court also did not abuse its discretion in allowing defendant’s ex-wife and his former girlfriend to testify about defendant’s specific acts while in their individual relationships, finding that defendant had committed such acts and the evidence was related to a material fact with logical relevance independent of the prohibited inference of defendant’s bad character. Further, the court provided an appropriate limiting instruction.

The judgment was reversed and the case was remanded for a new trial.

Summary provided courtesy of Colorado Lawyer.

Colorado Court of Appeals: Trial Court Committed Plain Error by Not Giving Unanimity Instruction in Forgery Case

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in People v. Wester-Gravelle on Thursday, June 28, 2018.

Forgery—Jury Instructions—Unanimity Instruction—C.R.C.P. 12(b).

Defendant worked as a certified nursing assistant for Interim Healthcare (Interim), which provides in-home care to patients. In 2015, Interim assigned defendant to care for Moseley five days a week for two hours each day. Even though defendant had failed to show for her shift for three weeks, she had submitted weekly shift charts to receive payment for the preceding three weeks. The shift charts showed Moseley’s purported signatures acknowledging that defendant had arrived for her shifts. A jury convicted defendant of forgery, and the court sentenced her to two years’ probation.

On appeal, defendant contended that the trial court erred when it failed, on its own motion, to require the prosecution to elect a single forged shift chart as the basis for the conviction or to give a modified unanimity instruction. The People argued that defendant waived this issue by failing to object to the information under Crim. P. 12(b)(2) and (3), which requires a defendant to raise defenses or objections to an information and complaint within 21 days following arraignment. Colorado law is clear that Rule 12(b) does not require a defendant to object when the error stems from circumstances that are not apparent from the charging document. Here, on its face the charge does not evidence a defect, so Crim. P. 12(b)(2) does not apply. The unanimity issue arose only after the prosecution decided to introduce three different written instruments for the period charged. Therefore, defendant did not waive her claim.

The court of appeals determined that the prosecution’s evidence presented a reasonable likelihood that the jurors may have disagreed on which shift chart constituted the forgery charged. Thus, the court should either have (1) required the prosecution to elect an act on which it relied for a conviction, or (2) instructed the jury that to convict, it had to unanimously agree on the act committed or unanimously agree that defendant committed all of the acts. This error was substantial and obvious.

The conviction was reversed and the case was remanded for a new trial.

Summary provided courtesy of Colorado Lawyer.

Colorado Court of Appeals: Promissory Note is a Security, Therefore Conviction for Securities Fraud Appropriate

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in People v. Thompson on Thursday, June 14, 2018.

Securities Fraud—Jury Instruction—Double Jeopardy—Propensity Evidence—Theft—Sentencing.

Defendant was the sole member of SGD Timber Canyon LLC (SGD), which held an interest in 63 undeveloped lots in the Timber Ridge subdivision. The lots went into foreclosure, and in February 2010 SGD filed for bankruptcy. Defendant did not disclose these facts to the Witts, who later loaned defendant $200,000 to acquire a lot in Timber Ridge and another $200,000 for construction of a home on the lot, with the understanding that the loans would be repaid with a profit share of as much as $400,000 when the home was sold to a prequalified buyer. Later, at defendant’s urging, the Witts increased the loan to $2.4 million and converted their investment into a “bridge loan” to defendant, who represented that the proceeds would be used for continued development of Timber Ridge. The parties executed a promissory note and guarantee agreement. The promissory note was secured by defendant’s primary and secondary residences with collateral to convert the 24 lots in Timer Ridge upon closing and final purchase of Timber Ridge.

Defendant used the money on items not related to Timber Ridge and never developed the property there. Defendant defaulted on the note. He eventually repaid the Witts $70,000. Ultimately, the Witts sued defendant but did not recover any further monies from him. A jury found defendant guilty of two counts of securities fraud and one count of theft, and he was sentenced to 12 years in the custody of the Department of Corrections for each of the securities counts, to be served concurrently, and 18 years for the theft conviction, to be served consecutively to the other sentences.

On appeal, defendant claimed that the evidence was insufficient to support his securities fraud convictions because the promissory note and guarantee he provided to the Witts did not constitute a security. The “family resemblance test” applies to determine when a note is a security under the Colorado Securities Act (CSA). Under the family resemblance test, a note is presumed to be a security, but that presumption may be rebutted by a showing that the note strongly resembles other financial instruments. Here, the Witts’ investment, memorialized by the promissory note, was a transaction protected by the CSA and did not strongly resemble the family of transactions that are not securities. The evidence was sufficient to support the securities fraud convictions.

Defendant also argued that the trial court erred by tendering an inaccurate jury instruction regarding the definition of a security. Defendant did not object to the definition of security that was given to the jury, nor did he tender an alternative instruction. The law regarding the definition of a security was not well settled at the time of defendant’s trial, and thus any error in the jury instruction would not have been obvious or plain.

Defendant also claimed that his convictions and sentences for securities fraud violated double jeopardy because they are alternative ways of committing the same offense, and therefore the two counts should be merged. Defendant failed to raise this issue before the trial court. Here, defendant was charged with and convicted of multiplicitous counts of securities fraud because the evidence showed a sale of one security to one investor based on one set of false or misleading statements. But the law was not well-settled concerning the proper unit of prosecution, so there was no plain error.

Defendant further contended that there was insufficient evidence to support his theft conviction. Although the funds were supposed to be used to develop Timber Ridge, defendant used the funds to pay his own attorney fees, to improve the house that his wife continued to occupy at the time of trial, and for other personal expenses. Therefore, there was sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that defendant knowingly obtained the Witts’ money by deception and intended to permanently deprive them of it.

Defendant also argued that the court erred by admitting propensity evidence that defendant had previously attempted to sell a lot in Timber Ridge that he did not own. However, the evidence was logically relevant to prove identity, motive, knowledge, and lack of mistake, and the probative value was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.

Lastly, defendant argued that his sentence for theft must run concurrently with the concurrent sentences for securities fraud because the crimes are based on identical evidence. Here, different evidence supported each offense, so there was no sentencing error.

The judgment and sentence were affirmed.

Summary provided courtesy of Colorado Lawyer.

Colorado Court of Appeals: Heat of Passion Jury Instruction Impermissibly Lowered Prosecution’s Burden of Proof

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in People v. Tardif on Thursday, November 2, 2017.

Jury InstructionsBurden of ProofHeat of Passion ProvocationAttempted Second Degree MurderFirst Degree AssaultMitigating FactorEvidenceDue ProcessSelf-DefenseDeadly Physical ForceSlow Motion VideoUnfair Prejudice—Prosecutorial Misconduct.

Tardif’s friend Soto was at a skate park and got into an argument with the victim. Tardif and Soto were members of the same gang, and the victim was wearing the colors of a rival gang. Soto called Tardif, and when Tardif arrived, Tardif and Soto walked up to the victim and Tardif shot him once in the abdomen. The victim fled and survived. Other people in the skate park recorded video of part of the initial argument between Soto and the victim as well as the shooting. A jury found Tardif guilty of attempted second degree murder, first degree assault, conspiracy to commit first degree assault, and three crime of violence counts.

On appeal, Tardif argued that the trial court erred by not instructing the jury that the prosecution had the burden to prove the absence of heat of passion provocation beyond a reasonable doubt. Heat of passion provocation is a mitigating factor for attempted second degree murder and first degree assault. Here, the heat of passion provocation instructions failed to inform the jury that the prosecution had to prove the absence of heat of passion provocation beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, the instructions, considered together, failed to properly instruct the jury on the prosecution’s burden of proof. Because Tardif presented sufficient evidence for a heat of passion provocation instruction, the error lowered the prosecution’s burden of proof and violated Tardif’s constitutional right to due process. Tardif also argued that the trial court’s self-defense instructions included several reversible errors. Self-defense is not an affirmative defense to conspiracy to commit first degree assault, and therefore, the court did not err in failing to instruct the jury that it was. But the trial court erred by instructing the jury on when deadly physical force may be used in self-defense because deadly physical force requires death, and here the victim did not die.

Tardif additionally argued that the trial court erred by admitting slow motion video recordings of the shooting. Although this evidence was relevant to explain the events around the shooting and to determine whether defendant acted with aggression or in self-defense, the probative value of the slow motion recordings was very low. This evidence was also cumulative of the real-time recording that was also admitted. Further, because Tardif’s state of mind at the time of the shooting was a disputed issue, the slow motion recordings’ low probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. The slow motion recordings may have portrayed Tardif’s actions as more premeditated than they actually were. The trial court abused its discretion by failing to weigh the slow motion recordings’ probative value against their danger of unfair prejudice.

Tardif further argued that two statements by the prosecutor during closing argument constituted misconduct and required reversal. The court of appeals did not doubt the reliability of Tardif’s conspiracy conviction and concluded that the prosecutor’s allegedly improper statements did not constitute plain error.

The conspiracy to commit first degree assault conviction was affirmed. The remaining convictions were reversed and the case was remanded with directions.

Summary provided courtesy of Colorado Lawyer.