2018 COA 131
Colo. Ct. App.2018Background
- Robert Aldridge was tried for multiple sexual-assault and aggravated-incest charges based on allegations by his two granddaughters (ages 4 and 9) arising from a 2013 camping trip; a jury convicted him and the court sentenced him to 116 years to life.
- The People moved under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 16-10-402 to have the child witnesses testify via closed-circuit television (CCTV) from another room; the trial court granted the motion.
- Instead of having the children testify from another room with the defendant remaining in the courtroom, the court had the children testify from the courtroom while Aldridge and the judge watched remotely from the judge’s chambers (the jury could not see or hear Aldridge).
- Defense objected, arguing the procedure violated Aldridge’s right to be present; the court allowed limited electronic communication between Aldridge and counsel, but Aldridge complained of audio/video problems and emotional distress during testimony.
- The court of appeals reversed, holding that removing Aldridge from the courtroom (absent a stipulation) violated the statutory framework and his constitutional right to be present; it also found ten consecutive sentences were improper and briefly addressed other evidentiary issues for remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether removing defendant from courtroom while child witnesses testified violated defendant’s right to be present | Procedure complied with statute’s purpose and did not deprive defendant of confrontation or presence; CCTV-equivalent protections sufficed | Excluding defendant deprived him of the right to be present and to exert psychological influence on jury; statute requires judge and defendant remain in courtroom unless stipulated otherwise | Reversed: removal (without stipulation) violated §16-10-402 and defendant’s due process right to be present; error not harmless |
| Whether prosecutor and witnesses improperly bolstered victims’ credibility | Any challenged testimony/argument was permissible or harmless | Bolstering testimony and prosecutorial opinion were improper and prejudicial | Court provided guidance: lay/expert may not opine that another witness is telling the truth; prosecutor must avoid personal veracity opinions; did not decide specific instances on record |
| Whether detective’s testimony that underwear could be an “erotic trigger” was admissible and properly disclosed as expert testimony | Testimony was responsive and relevant; defendant opened the door by questions about pornography/Viagra | Testimony was prejudicial, minimally probative, and improperly presented without expert disclosure | Declined to decide on merits; issue unlikely to recur on remand so not resolved |
| Whether trial court erred by imposing ten consecutive sentences | Consecutive sentences appropriate given multiple convictions | Many convictions arose from same acts/identical evidence; statutory rule requires concurrent sentences in that situation | Agreed with defendant: imposition of ten consecutive sentences was error; on remand court must follow §18-1-408(3) and related precedent |
Key Cases Cited
- Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836 (1990) (Confrontation Clause does not categorically bar one-way CCTV testimony of child witnesses where face-to-face presence would cause serious emotional distress that impairs communication)
- People v. Rodriguez, 209 P.3d 1151 (Colo. App. 2008) (trial court erred by removing defendant during child’s testimony without following statutory CCTV procedure)
- People v. Payne, 361 P.3d 1040 (Colo. App. 2014) (defendant’s presence is required in contexts where his absence may have psychological impact on jury; right to be present protects that interest)
- Larson v. Tansy, 911 F.2d 392 (10th Cir. 1990) (absence during jury instructions and verdict deprived defendant of due process right to exert psychological influence on jury)
- Luu v. People, 841 P.2d 271 (Colo. 1992) (defendant has constitutional right to be present at trial; absence can implicate confrontation and due process rights)
- Juhl v. People, 172 P.3d 896 (Colo. 2007) (when multiple convictions rest on identical evidence arising from same act or episode, sentences must run concurrently)