Nicholls v. People
2017 CO 71
| Colo. | 2017Background
- In 2008 Deborah Nicholls was convicted of first‑degree murders of her three children and related offenses; the People’s theory was she and her husband set the house on fire for insurance and to satisfy drug debts. The husband had earlier confessed to a cellmate implicating both of them.
- At Nicholls’ trial the husband was unavailable; the husband’s jailhouse statements to his cellmate (including admissions about planning and carrying out the fire) were admitted via CRE 804(b)(3) as statements against penal interest. A video of the cellmate’s interview was shown.
- Nicholls objected that the statements were hearsay and violated her state Confrontation Clause; she also argued the statements shifted blame and were insufficiently trustworthy under People v. Newton.
- The trial court admitted (1) the husband’s jailhouse statements and related narrative, and (2) testimony by Nicholls’ mother and the cellmate that an earlier child’s death had been ruled SIDS and that Nicholls grieved differently then. Nicholls appealed.
- The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed; the Colorado Supreme Court granted certiorari and (a) held that nontestimonial hearsay does not implicate Colorado’s Confrontation Clause (overruling Compan), (b) held that under the version of CRE 804(b)(3) in effect at trial only unavailability and that the statement tended to subject the declarant to criminal liability were required for admitting a nontestimonial statement against interest (i.e., Newton’s corroboration prong is not constitutionally required for nontestimonial statements), and (c) rejected Nicholls’ challenges to the SIDS/grief evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Nicholls’ Argument | People’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether admission of husband’s jailhouse statements violated Colorado Confrontation Clause | Husband’s statements were unreliable hearsay and, under state clause, nontestimonial statements require Roberts‑style reliability showing (Compan) | Husband’s statements were nontestimonial and thus not protected by the Confrontation Clause | Overruled Compan; nontestimonial hearsay does not implicate Colorado’s Confrontation Clause (follow Davis) |
| Whether husband’s statements were admissible under CRE 804(b)(3) as statements against interest | Statements shifted blame to Nicholls and lacked sufficient indicia of trustworthiness (arguing Newton’s corroboration prong) | Husband was unavailable and his statements tended to subject him to criminal liability; thus admissible under CRE 804(b)(3) in effect at trial | Admissible: unavailability and that the statement tended to subject declarant to criminal liability satisfied CRE 804(b)(3) as applied to nontestimonial statements; trial court did not abuse discretion |
| Whether Newton’s third (corroboration) prong is constitutionally required for inculpatory nontestimonial statements | Newton requires corroborating circumstances to show trustworthiness for inculpatory statements | For nontestimonial statements, confrontation concerns that motivated Newton’s third prong do not apply | Newton’s third prong is not constitutionally required for nontestimonial statements; only unavailability and that the statement tended to expose declarant to liability were required under the pre‑2010 rule |
| Admissibility of testimony about earlier child’s SIDS death and Nicholls’ grief (relevance/prejudice) | Evidence was irrelevant or unduly prejudicial and invited improper inference that Nicholls killed the earlier child | Testimony showed contrast in grief relevant to motive/state of mind and was not unduly prejudicial; cellmate’s brief SIDS comments were minor | Trial court did not abuse discretion admitting mother’s testimony; cellmate’s brief testimony about SIDS was not plain error given overwhelming admissible evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 (addressed reliability test for hearsay under Roberts framework)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (rejected Roberts reliability prong for testimonial statements; emphasized cross‑examination)
- Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (held Confrontation Clause applies only to testimonial statements)
- Williamson v. United States, 512 U.S. 594 (federal interpretation of scope of a statement against interest discussed and distinguished)
- People v. Newton, 966 P.2d 563 (Colo. 1998) (established three‑part test for inculpatory statements against interest, including corroboration prong)
- Compan v. People, 121 P.3d 876 (Colo. 2005) (held nontestimonial statements implicated state clause; overruled in this opinion)
- People v. Dement, 661 P.2d 675 (Colo. 1983) (adopted Roberts framework earlier; discussed state/federal alignment)
- People v. Fry, 92 P.3d 970 (Colo. 2004) (addressed applicability of Crawford to testimonial statements)