People v. Flockhart
304 P.3d 227
Colo.2013Background
- Defendant Rhoderick Flockhart was tried and convicted of distribution of marijuana and possession of eight ounces or more of marijuana based on an informant sale and discovery of ~9 pounds of marijuana in a building adjacent to his home.
- At voir dire and in preliminary instructions, the trial court told jurors they were permitted to discuss the case among themselves before formal deliberations provided they kept an open mind and did not form "firm conclusions." There is no record evidence that any pre-deliberation discussions actually occurred.
- On appeal a divided Colorado Court of Appeals reversed, holding the pre-deliberation instruction was constitutional error and remanding for a hearing; a dissent relied on empirical civil-jury research to argue otherwise.
- The Court granted certiorari to decide three issues: (1) propriety of pre-deliberation instructions in criminal trials; (2) whether challenges for cause must be heard outside jurors' presence; and (3) whether the trial judge should have been disqualified for prior, unrelated prosecution of Flockhart.
- The Colorado Supreme Court held the pre-deliberation instruction was erroneous but not structural or necessarily constitutional error on this record (treated as non-constitutional trial error and found harmless); it also held trial courts may, in their discretion, hear challenges for cause in open court and refused to disqualify the judge absent a material relationship between prior and current prosecutions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-deliberation instruction permitting juror discussion before deliberations | People: court should not permit pre-deliberation discussions in criminal trials without empirical study; but if error, it is non-constitutional harmless error | Flockhart: instruction was unauthorized and violated constitutional right to fair, impartial jury (structural or constitutional error requiring reversal) | Instruction was unauthorized and therefore erroneous; on this record it was trial (non-structural) error, not shown to violate constitutional rights, and was harmless — convictions reinstated |
| Standard of review for pre-deliberation instruction (structural vs. trial error; constitutional error?) | Flockhart: structural or constitutional error requiring automatic reversal or Chapman-level harmless beyond reasonable doubt review | People: non-constitutional trial error subject to ordinary harmless-error review | Error classified as trial error (not structural). Because record shows no prejudicial discussions and civil-jury empirical studies do not directly apply, court declined to treat it as constitutional error on this record and applied harmless-error review |
| Challenges for cause heard in presence of prospective jurors | People: trial court has discretion to hear challenges for cause in open court | Flockhart: ABA recommends challenges be heard outside jurors' presence to avoid tainting jurors; court of appeals erred | Court rejected per se rule; trial court has discretion to hear challenges for cause in open court but must proceed cautiously; no abuse of discretion here |
| Judicial disqualification based on judge's prior, unrelated prosecution of defendant | Flockhart: prior prosecution by judge (when prosecutor) creates appearance of partiality requiring disqualification | People: prior unrelated employment/prosecution alone insufficient for disqualification | Following Julien, prior prosecution on unrelated charges (seven years earlier) without material connection does not require disqualification; motion properly denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Winebrenner v. United States, 147 F.2d 322 (8th Cir. 1945) (early decision holding pre-deliberation instruction violated defendants' right to fair, impartial jury)
- Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (1999) (distinguishing structural from other constitutional errors)
- Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275 (1993) (structural-error framework and automatic reversal principle)
- Medina v. People, 114 P.3d 845 (Colo. 2005) (evaluating juror questioning and use of empirical research in jury-reform contexts)
- People v. Julien, 47 P.3d 1194 (Colo. 2002) (former employment by prosecutor not, standing alone, grounds for disqualification absent material involvement)
- Preciado-Flores, 66 P.3d 155 (Colo. App. 2002) (court of appeals decision discussing pre-deliberation instruction as error)
- Harper v. People, 817 P.2d 77 (Colo. 1991) (reviewing juror exposure/misconduct for prejudice despite limits on post-verdict inquiry)