Peo v. Estrada
23CA0669
Colo. Ct. App.Sep 19, 2024Background
- Luis Martin Estrada was convicted by a jury of first-degree murder, attempted first-degree murder (4 counts), first-degree assault (2 counts), and menacing (3 counts).
- The incident took place at a hotel birthday party in October 2021, involving Estrada, his girlfriend, and Ruben Mejia-Soto (the proposed alternate suspect).
- Estrada was identified as the shooter, observed flashing and firing a gun after being ejected from the party; a gunshot residue test on Estrada was positive, and multiple witnesses described the shooter as matching Estrada’s appearance.
- Mejia-Soto was also present, his DNA was found on the gun and magazine; Estrada was an inconclusive contributor, but Estrada was excluded from the magazine.
- Estrada attempted to present an alternate suspect defense, focusing on Mejia-Soto’s similar prior conduct at another party.
- The trial court excluded evidence of Mejia-Soto’s prior gun-related act as inadmissible character evidence without distinctive similarities; judgment against Estrada was affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred in excluding evidence of alternate suspect’s prior acts | Prior acts were generic | Prior act showed a common scheme/plan | No error; evidence too generic, not distinctive |
| Whether exclusion violated Estrada’s right to present an alternate suspect defense | No; defense not blocked | Yes; constrained his only viable defense | No violation; defense could still be presented |
| Whether exclusion of evidence was harmless error | Evidence overwhelming | Error substantially influenced verdict | Harmless error, if any; verdict unaffected |
| Applicability of CRE 404(b) and alternate suspect evidence law | Properly applied | Should admit to show propensity/plan | Correctly applied and followed precedent |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Elmarr, 2015 CO 53 (Colo. 2015) (governs admissibility and review standard for alternate suspect evidence, requiring distinctiveness and relevance beyond mere propensity)
- People v. Bueno, 626 P.2d 1167 (Colo. App. 1981) (clarifies when prior acts by an alternate suspect are admissible—must have significant similarities, more than generic circumstances)
- People v. Salazar, 2012 CO 20 (Colo. 2012) (reiterates need for distinctiveness/unusual similarity between acts for admissibility)
- People v. Trusty, 53 P.3d 668 (Colo. App. 2001) (exclusion of alternate suspect’s prior acts appropriate where no distinctive similarity with current charge)
- People v. Ornelas, 937 P.2d 867 (Colo. App. 1996) (same principle regarding alternate suspect evidence)