People v. Butson
2017 COA 50
| Colo. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In summer 2013 Brock Butson and his two sons committed a series of bank robberies; Butson planned the robberies, wrote demand notes, and acted as the getaway driver while his sons entered banks.
- Butson was charged in three separate criminal cases for multiple robberies and conspiracies; the prosecution moved to consolidate those cases for a single trial, which the court granted over defense objection.
- After arrest Butson waived Miranda and gave a videotaped custodial statement admitting involvement and implicating his sons; at the end he asked officers to try to minimize punishment for his children and said he would "take the entire blame."
- Butson moved to suppress his statements arguing they were settlement negotiations or offers to compromise (to obtain leniency for his sons) and thus inadmissible under Colorado Rule of Evidence (CRE) 408; the district court denied suppression.
- Butson also sought a special prosecutor because the lead prosecutor in the robbery cases was endorsed as a witness in a later witness-tampering complaint; the court denied that motion and the witness-tampering case was later dismissed at preliminary hearing.
- Jury convicted Butson on most counts; he appealed, challenging: (1) admissibility of his statements under CRE 408; (2) consolidation/joinder of the three cases and absence of a limiting instruction; and (3) denial of his motion for a special prosecutor.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CRE 408 barred admission of Butson’s custodial statements | The People: 408 doesn't bar statements made to government in criminal enforcement context; Butson waived Miranda so statements admissible | Butson: his statements were offers to compromise criminal charges (leniency for sons) and thus settlement negotiations inadmissible under CRE 408 | Held: CRE 408 generally covers civil settlement communications; it does not bar statements made to government agents in criminal enforcement matters, so statements admissible |
| Whether the three robbery cases were properly joined for trial | The People: crimes were similar, part of common scheme/plan — consolidation proper | Butson: separate victims/locations made joinder prejudicial, risked juror confusion | Held: No abuse of discretion — offenses were sufficiently similar/common plan; jury verdicts showed it could distinguish counts |
| Whether failure to give a Rule 404(b)/limiting instruction was reversible error | The People: consolidation may merge counts and limiting instruction not required; defense bears duty to request instruction | Butson: lack of limiting instruction prevented jury from distinguishing other-acts evidence | Held: No plain error — defense did not request limiting instruction; jury was instructed counts are separate and verdicts reflect careful parsing |
| Whether a special prosecutor was required because lead prosecutor was a witness in related case | The People: no cognizable basis for disqualification absent personal/financial interest or special circumstances | Butson: appearance of impropriety because prosecutor was endorsed as witness in witness-tampering case | Held: Denial affirmed — statutory standard does not permit disqualification merely for appearance of impropriety; no actual prejudice shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966) (Miranda warning/waiver principles)
- McClain v. People, 141 P.2d 685 (Colo. 1943) (discusses admissibility of offers to compromise in criminal context)
- United States v. Davis, 596 F.3d 852 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (distinguishes settlement negotiations with private parties from negotiations with government under Rule 408)
- United States v. Baker, 926 F.2d 179 (2d Cir. 1991) (noting difficulty of treating criminal plea negotiations as "claims" under Rule 408)
- United States v. McGuire, 27 F.3d 457 (10th Cir. 1994) (series of bank robberies constituted common scheme/plan)
- United States v. Gutierrez, 696 F.2d 753 (10th Cir. 1982) (other-act evidence admissible to show common scheme/plan)
- United States v. Bailey, 327 F.3d 1131 (10th Cir. 2003) (discusses Rule 408 applicability to settlement statements)
- People v. Loper, 241 P.3d 543 (Colo. 2010) (movant for disqualification must show actual facts demonstrating prejudice)