Peo v. Rodriguez
22CA1732
Colo. Ct. App.Mar 20, 2025Background
- Defendant Pedro Rodriguez was stopped by police for a traffic violation in Colorado Springs, with a large sum of cash and cocaine found connected to him.
- During the stop, Rodriguez acted nervously, attempted to flee, discarded a baggie (found to contain about an ounce of cocaine), and was apprehended after a chase.
- Rodriguez was charged and initially convicted of possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance; the conviction was previously reversed for evidentiary issues concerning the drug’s chain of custody, leading to a retrial.
- At the retrial, Detective Coddington testified as an expert that the amount of drugs, cash, and number of cell phones indicated intent to distribute.
- Rodriguez contested the adequacy of the police investigation, the ownership and intent related to the drugs, and objected to expert and prosecutorial conduct, as well as the trial court’s jury instructions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expert testimony on ultimate issue | Detective's testimony on intent to distribute was permissible | Testimony usurped jury’s role | Any error was harmless; judgment affirmed |
| Prosecutorial comments on drug dealers | Comments were reasonable inferences from evidence | Comments asserted facts not in evidence/expertise | Comments were permissible argument |
| Misstatement of cocaine value in closing | Misstatement was unintentional and immaterial | Misstated value could prejudice jury | Difference was immaterial; no prejudice |
| Jury instruction on mandatory conviction | Jury must follow the law if elements proved | Instruction denied right to jury nullification | Proper; no right to jury nullification |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Payne, 2019 COA 167 (abuse of discretion standard for admission of testimony)
- Hagos v. People, 2012 CO 63 (plain error standard when no objection at trial)
- People v. Miller, 113 P.3d 743 (definition of plain error affecting substantial rights)
- People v. Rector, 248 P.3d 1196 (factors to determine if expert usurped jury’s function)
- People v. Atencio, 140 P.3d 73 (distinguishing expert opinion on elements of crime)
- People v. Walters, 148 P.3d 331 (prosecutorial misconduct and limits on advocacy)
- Domingo-Gomez v. People, 125 P.3d 1043 (permissible scope of closing argument)
- People v. Wilson, 972 P.2d 701 (jury nullification is not a constitutional right)