People v. Carian
2017 COA 106
| Colo. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Defendant Samuel Carian was on misdemeanor probation requiring regular urine drug tests and missed or failed some tests.
- Carian handed his probation officer four documents he said were negative urinalysis results from a facility called Wiz Quiz; probation could not verify the records with Wiz Quiz and the facility’s manager said the forms were not their documents.
- Carian was charged with forgery under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-5-102(1)(d) and attempting to influence a public servant for providing the fraudulent reports to his probation officer.
- At trial a jury convicted Carian of one count of forgery and one count of attempting to influence a public servant; he appealed.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed (1) sufficiency of evidence for forgery under subsection (1)(d); (2) admission of prior drug-offense evidence as res gestae; and (3) alleged prosecutorial misconduct during opening and rebuttal argument.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for forgery under § 18-5-102(1)(d): whether the urinalysis reports were an “instrument” that was “filed or required by law to be filed or legally fileable” with a public office or public servant | The reports were instruments and giving them to the probation officer amounted to filing or made them legally fileable under subsection (1)(d) | The reports were not public records, not legally required to be filed, and handing them to the probation officer was not the kind of filing subsection (1)(d) contemplates | Vacated forgery conviction: reports were instruments but not filed, required to be filed, nor legally fileable under (1)(d); evidence insufficient for that subsection (1)(d) conviction |
| Lesser nonincluded-offense instruction (second-degree forgery) | N/A (People opposed) | Requested jury instruction on lesser nonincluded offense | Not reached (moot) because forgery conviction vacated |
| Admissibility of prior drug-offense evidence as res gestae | Evidence provided necessary context (probation condition) and was admissible for limited purpose | Admission was prejudicial and should be excluded | Even if erroneous, admission was harmless given context, related trial evidence, and limiting instructions; conviction for attempt to influence upheld |
| Prosecutorial misconduct for comments about ‘squandering’ probation resources (opening and rebuttal) | Comments argued to be proper context and permissible inferences about harm to probation goals | Comments improperly appealed to juror bias about sanctions and public resources | Comments were improper but not plain error during opening; rebuttal comments were improper but cured by court admonition and harmless—conviction for attempt to influence affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Cunefare, 102 P.3d 302 (Colo. 2004) (broad construction of forgery subsection covering instruments affecting legal rights)
- People v. Taylor, 159 P.3d 730 (Colo. App. 2006) (forgery conviction where forged probation/community-service forms could affect liberty interest)
- People v. Vesely, 587 P.2d 802 (Colo. App. 1978) (forgery conviction for filing forged income tax returns as instruments required to be filed)
- People v. Miralda, 981 P.2d 676 (Colo. App. 1999) (vacating conviction when evidence insufficient)
- People v. Roggow, 318 P.3d 446 (Colo. 2013) (standard of review for sufficiency challenges)