Cropper v. People
251 P.3d 434
Colo.2011Background
- Cropper was convicted of second degree burglary and theft after a jury trial in Colorado.
- The prosecution disclosed a forensic shoe-print report by a laboratory technician who could not testify due to an out-of-state family emergency.
- Cropper objected to admitting the report without live testimony from the technician, raising Confrontation Clause concerns.
- The trial court admitted the report under Crim. P. 16-3-309(5) after finding no timely demand for live testimony by Cropper's counsel.
- The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed, applying Mojica-Simental and Melendez-Diaz to uphold the waiver of confrontation rights under the statute.
- The Colorado Supreme Court, in an en banc decision, held the statute constitutional as applied, concluding Cropper’s attorney waived the right.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is section 16-3-309(5) constitutional as applied? | Cropper argues the statute can be applied unconstitutionally. | People contends the statute appropriately preserves confrontation rights. | Constitutional as applied |
| May defense counsel's inaction under 16-3-309(5) constitute a valid waiver of confrontation rights? | Cropper asserts no valid waiver occurred due to counsel's lack of knowledge. | People contends waiver is valid when counsel fails to comply with the statute. | Waiver valid under the statute |
| Does notice provided via discovery suffice to trigger 16-3-309(5) without pre-trial notice of intent to admit without live testimony? | Cropper contends discovery does not equate to actual notice required by the statute. | People argues discovery notice meets the requirement and protects confrontation rights. | Discovery notice sufficient; notice-and-demand not violated |
Key Cases Cited
- Mojica-Simental, 73 P.3d 15 (Colo. 2003) (forensic reports are testimonial; waiver rules on confrontation rights)
- Hinojos-Mendoza v. People, 169 P.3d 662 (Colo. 2007) (defense counsel can waive confrontation rights by not complying with 16-3-309(5))
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 129 S. Ct. 2527 (U.S. 2009) (forensic lab reports are testimonial; actual notice preferred; notice-and-demand statutes vary)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (Confrontation Clause generally requires cross-examination of testimonial statements)
- Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400 (U.S. 1988) (defendant must take affirmative steps to invoke confrontation rights)
- People v. Mojica-Simental, 73 P.3d 15 (Colo. 2003) (constitutional face of 16-3-309(5); need for actual notice to assert rights)