People v. Clark
2015 COA 44
Colo. Ct. App.2015Background
- Early on Jan. 1, 2007 a white limousine was fired upon from a white Chevrolet Tahoe; one victim (Darrent Williams) died, others wounded; prosecution claimed drive-by motivated by gang disrespect.
- Defendant Willie Clark was tried and convicted of multiple counts including murder (extreme indifference and after deliberation), attempted first-degree murder, assault, violent crime, and possession of a weapon by a prior offender.
- Prosecution relied on testimony from codefendant/witness Daniel Harris (who received immunity) placing Clark as the shooter; physical evidence suggested more than one gun caliber fired.
- Prosecution presented gang-evidence and a gang expert to show motive (Tre Tre Crips ‘code of respect’); several witnesses testified Clark confessed; a letter purportedly from Clark was introduced.
- Defense argued Harris was the shooter and that Harris fabricated testimony for a deal; defense also challenged gang evidence, limits on cross-examination, admission of prior consistent statements, and sought grand-jury testimony of unavailable witnesses.
- The trial court denied a new-trial motion based on juror-misconduct affidavits; the appellate court affirmed most rulings but reversed the denial of the new-trial motion and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on juror misconduct.
Issues
| Issue | People s Argument | Clark s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of gang affiliation and expert testimony | Gang membership and expert testimony were relevant to motive and explained why defendant would act to "save face." | Gang evidence was irrelevant to a bar-fight origin and unduly prejudicial. | Admission was within trial court discretion: evidence was probative of motive and intermediate facts; not improperly character evidence. |
| Limits on cross-examination of key witnesses (Harris, Edwards, Vigil) | Court permitted extensive impeachment and limited only cumulative or collateral lines that risked prejudice/confusion. | Exclusion curtailed ability to impeach credibility and violated confrontation rights. | No abuse of discretion; limits were appropriate under CRE 403/608 and did not violate confrontation. |
| Admission of Daniel Harris s videotaped prior consistent statements | Video rehabilitated Harris after general and specific impeachment; entire tape relevant to credibility. | Tape contained inconsistent and extraneous portions; a limiting instruction was required. | Trial court did not abuse discretion admitting full interview; omission of limiting instruction was not plain error (defense did not request one). |
| Juror misconduct (postverdict affidavit alleging extraneous info and premature deliberations) | Trial court found motion insufficient; People argued motion untimely and affidavit hearsay. | Affidavit alleged jurors tested ability to ID car colors, pre-decided guilt, and outside contact between alternate and deliberating juror; sought new trial or hearing. | Appellate court reversed denial and remanded for an evidentiary hearing: affidavit raised competent, specific allegations of extraneous information and possible outside influence requiring inquiry. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Mendoza, 876 P.2d 98 (Colo. App. 1994) (gang affiliation admissible to show motive)
- People v. Elie, 148 P.3d 359 (Colo. App. 2006) (prior consistent statements admissible for rehabilitation beyond Rule 801(d)(1)(B))
- People v. Bogdanov, 941 P.2d 247 (Colo. 1997) (complicity instruction language and when to include "all or part of")
- People v. Iuppa, 731 P.2d 728 (Colo. 1987) (timing and jurisdictional limits on motions for new trial)
- People v. Wiser, 732 P.2d 1139 (Colo. 1987) (treatment of juror affidavits and when hearings on juror misconduct are warranted)
- United States v. Smithers, 212 F.3d 306 (6th Cir. 2000) (federal guidance on CRE 403/undue delay analogues)