2014 COA 94
Colo. Ct. App.2014Background
- Defendant Isare K. Aryee, a pastor, was charged with multiple sexual-assault counts based on sexual relations with K.W., which produced a child; the jury convicted him and the court sentenced him to 30 years to life plus lifetime parole.
- The case originated in Denver, transferred to Adams County by agreement, and the Adams County DA later filed a written motion asking the court to appoint the Denver DA offices as special prosecutors and to disqualify the Adams County DA's office.
- Aryee challenged the disqualification order, arguing the Adams County DA should not have been disqualified without a showing of a personal or financial interest or special circumstances under section 20-1-107.
- Aryee also moved to suppress statements he made after he allegedly invoked his right to counsel during a custodial police interview; the trial court admitted the statements and Aryee appealed.
- Aryee challenged the sufficiency of the evidence that K.W. was under fifteen (and between fifteen and eighteen for other counts); the prosecution offered testimonial and circumstantial evidence about K.W.’s birthdate and conduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 20-1-107 requires the DA who seeks her own disqualification to make a showing of conflict or special circumstances | People: The court may disqualify a DA when she requests it; no additional showing is required | Aryee: Adams County DA should not be disqualified absent a showing of personal/financial interest or special circumstances that would affect fairness | The statute’s plain language allows disqualification on the DA’s own request without any showing; court did not abuse its discretion |
| Whether Aryee’s ambiguous request for a lawyer during custodial interrogation required cessation of questioning and suppression of subsequent statements | People: The officer reasonably treated the remark as ambiguous and sought clarification; statements admissible | Aryee: His statement “until I talk to my lawyer” was an unambiguous invocation of the right to counsel, so all subsequent questioning should be suppressed | Court held the request was ambiguous under the totality of circumstances; officers were not required to stop; statements properly admitted |
| Whether evidence was sufficient to prove K.W.’s age (under 15 and 15–18 ranges) to support the charged offenses | People: Testimony from family, school official, doctor, and defendant’s statements gave a reasonable basis for the jury to find the victim’s age as alleged | Aryee: The People failed to prove K.W.’s age (no birth certificate; conflicting evidence) | Sufficient evidence existed for a reasonable jury to find K.W. was 15 at first incident and between 15–18 for later incidents; convictions affirmed |
| Whether trial court correctly admitted recorded interview given recorded facts and mixed question of law and fact | People: Recorded transcript supports trial court’s factual findings and legal conclusion that invocation was ambiguous | Aryee: Recorded interview shows unambiguous invocation requiring suppression | Court reviewed recording, deferred to factual findings supported by the record, and affirmed admission of interview statements |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Loper, 241 P.3d 543 (Colo. 2010) (standard—abuse of discretion for DA disqualification review)
- People v. Perez, 238 P.3d 665 (Colo. 2010) (disqualification requires showing that interest affects trial fairness when movant is not the DA)
- People v. Lynn, 278 P.3d 365 (Colo. 2012) (framework for assessing ambiguous invocation of the right to counsel)
- Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (1994) (request for counsel must be unambiguous and unequivocal)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (Miranda warnings and right to counsel during custodial interrogation)
- People v. C.V., 64 P.3d 272 (Colo. 2003) (defendant seeking disqualification must present evidence that conflict would deny fair trial)