Howard-Walker v. People
2019 CO 69
Colo.2019Background
- Police investigated an August 2013 burglary after a homeowner’s motion-activated alarm-clock camera recorded two masked men removing valuables from a safe; the homeowner enhanced and publicized the footage.
- A tipster and others identified Kyree Howard‑Walker as the man carrying what appeared to be a gun; police arrested him, seized shoes and sunglasses, and executed a search that found none of the stolen property.
- At a two-day jury trial Howard‑Walker was convicted of first‑degree burglary (based on use/threat of a deadly weapon) and conspiracy to commit first‑degree burglary.
- On appeal the Colorado Court of Appeals identified eight trial errors (five involving Detective Garcia’s testimony, two instructional errors, and one prosecutorial comment on defendant’s silence) but held they were not reversible individually or cumulatively, adopting a multi‑factor federal‑circuit style cumulative‑error test.
- The Colorado Supreme Court granted certiorari, held that Oaks v. People governs cumulative‑error review (rejecting the court of appeals’ added federal test), and reversed because the errors collectively deprived Howard‑Walker of a fair trial.
Issues
| Issue | Howard‑Walker’s Argument | People’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper standard for cumulative error review | Oaks standard controls; court of appeals erred by importing federal multi‑factor test | Federal precedents provide useful structure; errors were harmless under that analysis | Court: Oaks remains Colorado’s governing standard; court of appeals erred in supplementing it with federal circuit tests |
| Whether identified trial errors cumulatively denied a fair trial | Multiple errors (detective’s improper testimony, faulty instructions, prosecutorial comment on silence) together prejudiced the trial and require reversal | Errors were brief/attenuated and did not undermine result; evidence of guilt was substantial | Court: The eight errors, when aggregated, deprived defendant of a fair trial; reversed and remanded for new trial |
| Prejudicial nature of specific errors (improper expert/speculative testimony; opinion on witness truthfulness; prosecutor’s comment on silence; deficient instructions) | These individual errors were harmful and, in combination, undermined credibility and key elements (weapon, intent, predicate theft) | Some errors were minor or unrelated to identity; instructional lapses did not substantially prejudice because parties focused on theft | Court: Several testimony items (gun real, speculative threats, officer opinion on truthfulness, statements about probable cause and girlfriend’s emotion) and the prosecutorial comment were highly prejudicial; instructional errors further weakened trial fairness |
| When plain‑error is measured (time of trial vs time of appeal) | (Raised) plain‑error timing should favor reversal when errors were plain at trial | (Raised) timing affects reversibility analysis | Court did not decide this question because it resolved the case on cumulative‑error grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Oaks v. People, 371 P.2d 443 (Colo. 1962) (establishes Colorado standard that multiple harmless errors may, in aggregate, show absence of a fair trial)
- Venalonzo v. People, 388 P.3d 868 (Colo. 2017) (rules on admission of expert/lay testimony distinctions)
- Liggett v. People, 135 P.3d 725 (Colo. 2006) (prohibits witnesses giving opinions on another witness’s veracity)
- Lucero v. People, 615 P.2d 660 (Colo. 1980) (discusses cumulative error requiring reversal when fairness of proceedings is substantially affected)
- Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (U.S. 1965) (prohibits adverse comments on defendant’s decision not to testify)
- Martinez v. People, 425 P.2d 299 (Colo. 1967) (defines impermissible prosecutorial references to defendant’s silence)