2018 COA 180
Colo. Ct. App.2018Background
- On Jan. 24, 2014, Tanya Garcia confronted a 12-year-old (T.H.) in a park believing he stole nail polish; after a dispute she drove her SUV over a curb and across the park toward children, who testified at trial.
- Garcia was convicted by a jury of felony menacing, seven counts of reckless endangerment, and one count of reckless driving; she appealed the denial of a challenge for cause to juror J.P.
- During voir dire defense counsel questioned jurors about possible sympathy/bias for child witnesses; J.P. said he had young children, felt sympathetic but stated he could follow the judge’s instructions and be fair.
- Defense challenged J.P. for cause; the trial court denied the challenge. Garcia exhausted peremptory strikes but did not use one on J.P., who served on the jury.
- On appeal Garcia argued the trial court abused its discretion in denying the challenge for cause; the People argued Garcia invited error by not using a peremptory strike and alternatively that the denial was proper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Garcia invited appellate review error by failing to use a peremptory strike after an unsuccessful challenge for cause | People: Garcia invited error by not using a peremptory to cure the alleged juror bias, so review is barred | Garcia: Failure to use a peremptory was not affirmative strategic acquiescence and does not bar review | Court: Declined to apply invited-error; record doesn’t show affirmative, strategic conduct to foreclose review |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Garcia’s challenge for cause to juror J.P. | Garcia: J.P.’s statements showed he could not unequivocally set aside bias for child witnesses and thus was actually biased | People: J.P. affirmed he could follow instructions and be fair; demeanor supported impartiality | Court: No abuse of discretion; trial court properly found J.P. could be fair and impartial |
| Proper standard of review for challenge for cause | N/A | N/A | Abuse-of-discretion standard; deference to trial court’s assessment of juror demeanor and credibility |
| Whether voir dire required further rehabilitation of J.P. by court or prosecution | Garcia: Neither court nor People rehabilitated J.P., so his ambivalence remained unaddressed | People: Not necessary because J.P. committed to fairness and distinguished his own experience from witnesses’ circumstances | Court: No additional rehabilitation required; record supported trial court’s determination |
Key Cases Cited
- Morrison v. People, 19 P.3d 668 (Colo. 2000) (defendant need not use a peremptory strike to preserve challenge-for-cause error on appeal)
- Carrillo v. People, 974 P.2d 478 (Colo. 1999) (abuse-of-discretion review and right to impartial jury)
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986) (peremptory-strike procedures and limits to disclosure when non-discriminatory)
- United States v. Martinez-Salazar, 528 U.S. 304 (2000) (federal rule does not require using a peremptory to cure judicial error)
- People v. Russo, 713 P.2d 356 (Colo. 1986) (trial court should sustain for-cause challenge when genuine doubt exists about juror impartiality)
- People v. Rhodus, 870 P.2d 470 (Colo. 1994) (trial court may give weight to juror’s assertion they can be fair)
- People v. Fleischacker, 411 P.3d 20 (Colo. App. 2013) (a juror need not be absolutely unequivocal if they express belief and commitment to fairness)