2015 COA 174
Colo. Ct. App.2015Background
- Jason Garner was convicted of first-degree murder for the 1998 disappearance and 2002 discovery of a woman’s remains; jury returned guilty verdict and he received life without parole. An earlier direct appeal affirmed the conviction.
- Prosecution presented forensic testimony (forensic anthropologist and coroner) concluding a perimortem sharp-force injury consistent with a single-edged knife caused death, plus statements and other circumstantial evidence pointing to Garner.
- Defense theory at trial was that Garner did not kill the victim; defense planned several expert witnesses (forensic anthropology, hypothermia, methamphetamine effects) and impeachment witnesses but many were not called for strategic or logistical reasons.
- Garner filed a Crim. P. 35(c) pro se postconviction motion alleging multiple instances of ineffective assistance of trial counsel (failure to present experts, failure to call an impeachment witness, undisclosed conflict, and inadequate intoxication instruction), and requested an evidentiary hearing.
- After a hearing with live testimony (trial counsel, experts, witness K, Garner), the postconviction court denied relief; Garner appealed and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trial counsel failed to present expert evidence (forensic anthropology; hypothermia; methamphetamine effects) | People: Counsel’s choices were reasonable strategic decisions; replacing or calling experts late posed credibility, timing, and waiver risks and could have harmed defense. | Garner: Counsel was ineffective for not obtaining/ calling experts who would have supported nonhomicidal explanations or explained his inconsistent statements. | Denied — court found counsel’s decisions objectively reasonable, tactical, and not shown to be prejudicial; no evidence another expert would have contradicted prosecution. |
| Failure to call a particular jailhouse witness (Mr. K) to impeach prosecution witness | People: Counsel already impeached the witness with two inmates; an additional inmate (K) was impeachable and would have been cumulative. | Garner: Counsel unreasonably omitted Mr. K, who would have corroborated impeachment and undermined the friend’s credibility. | Denied — court found omission reasonable and not prejudicial; Mr. K’s testimony would be impeachable and duplicative. |
| Conflict of interest from lead counsel’s prior representation of potential witness (Mr. K) | People: No actual conflict shown; no evidence counsel knew of K’s willingness to testify during the overlapping period, and any prior representation did not materially limit defense. | Garner: Overlap and continuing duties to former client created an undisclosed conflict that affected representation. | Denied — court required proof of an actual conflict adversely affecting performance; Garner failed to show counsel was aware in time or that any confidential information or divided loyalty impaired representation. |
| Jury instruction on voluntary intoxication (alleged inadequate instruction) | People: Leaving the partial instruction could be strategic and arguably advantaged defendant; counsel reasonably declined to request full intoxication instruction given defense theory. | Garner: Counsel should have requested a full instruction explaining voluntary intoxication may negate specific intent for first-degree murder. | Denied — court concluded counsel’s decision was within reasonable strategy and that leaving the instruction partial arguably benefitted Garner; no deficient performance shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 (conflict-of-interest standard requiring an actual conflict that adversely affects counsel’s performance)
- Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (addresses postconviction review and cautions against post hoc rationalizations; permits consideration of reasonable strategic reasons)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (reinforces deference to counsel’s strategic choices under Strickland)
- Dunlap v. People, 173 P.3d 1054 (Colo.) (applies Strickland in Colorado; discusses prejudice and deficient performance)
- Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365 (discusses scope of counsel incompetence as to ineffective assistance)