Martinez v. People, 393 P.3d 557

Martinez lived with victims (three stepdaughters) for years; between 2004–2009 he was charged with multiple counts of sexual assault based largely on the girls’ forensic interviews and their trial testimony.
Police conducted forensic interviews; DVDs and transcripts of those interviews were admitted into evidence at trial.
During trial the prosecutor played the DVDs and provided jurors with copies of the transcripts; the trial court ultimately allowed the jury unfettered access to the interview transcripts (and possibly the DVDs) during deliberations.
Martinez did not contemporaneously object to sending the materials to the jury and at closing defense counsel actually told jurors they could review the interviews during deliberations.
Martinez argued on appeal that allowing unsupervised access was reversible plain error because the exhibits contained powerful out-of-court statements that could unduly influence the jury.
The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals, holding that even if error occurred, it was not plain because the record did not show the jury likely overemphasized the interviews or that the verdicts’ reliability was seriously in doubt.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether allowing jurors unfettered access to DVDs/transcripts of victims’ forensic interviews during deliberations was plain error warranting reversal	Martinez: Unsupervised access was obvious/substantial error that risked undue emphasis on prosecution evidence and undermined trial fairness and verdict reliability	People: Trial court had discretion; any error was not plain because interviews were not the sole or linchpin evidence and did not create serious doubt about convictions	Held: Even assuming abuse of discretion and obvious substantial error, it was not plain error — verdicts affirmed because reliability and fundamental fairness were not materially undermined

DeBella v. People, 233 P.3d 664 (Colo. 2010) (discusses prejudice risk when juries access videotaped child-victim interviews and reverses where interview was linchpin)
Frasco v. People, 165 P.3d 701 (Colo. 2007) (trial courts have discretion to control jury access to exhibits and must prevent unfair use)
Settle v. People, 504 P.2d 680 (Colo. 1972) (discretion over jury access to testimony/exhibits during deliberations)
Wilson v. People, 84 P.2d 463 (Colo. 1938) (trial judge discretion to send non-sealed papers to jury)
Miller v. People, 113 P.3d 743 (Colo. 2005) (plain error requires showing fundamental unfairness casting serious doubt on conviction)
Hagos v. People, 288 P.3d 116 (Colo. 2012) (Crim. P. 52(b) plain-error framework)
United States v. Binder, 769 F.2d 595 (9th Cir. 1985) (videotape testimony’s unique impact on jurors due to demeanor and audiovisual presentation)