People v. Garrison
2012 Colo. App. LEXIS 1309
Colo. Ct. App.2012Background
- Defendant, Thomas Anthony Garrison II, was convicted of first degree murder, first degree felony murder, conspiracy to commit first degree murder with a crime of violence sentence enhancer, two counts of aggravated robbery, and conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery.
- Defendant’s theory was that his uncle killed the victim and that he did not know of the plan; R.G. testified against him and Defendant attacked R.G.’s credibility.
- The uncle and Defendant planned to kill the victim due to a debt and to take over the cocaine-dealing hierarchy; a get-away car was stolen the night before the killing.
- The next day, Defendant and his uncle entered the victim’s apartment; the uncle shot the victim and a bullet passed through the victim into Defendant’s leg; Defendant then fired at the victim.
- Defendant fled the state with his uncle and his girlfriend, later being found in Arizona; a severed issue concerns whether juror questions influenced the trial.
- During trial, jurors submitted hundreds of written questions; issues include jury access to cell-phone text messages admitted into evidence and a challenge for cause to a prospective juror.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether juror questions were improperly limited or abused discretion | Garrison argues the court abused discretion by not limiting the questions | Garrison contends the volume and nature of questions compromised trial fairness | No abuse; juror questions allowed under Crim. P. 24(g) |
| Whether Juror V was improperly kept on the panel for inattentiveness | Garrison claims Juror V. was inattentive due to excessive question-writing | Garrison argues this shows bias and warrants removal | No abuse; Juror V. engaged and attentive; not grounds for removal |
| Whether the jury accessing text messages from a phone admitted into evidence was extraneous information under CRE 606(b) | Garrison asserts the messages were extraneous prejudicial information | Garrison contends the messages prejudiced the defense | Text messages were not extraneous information; intrinsic to admitted cell phone evidence |
| Whether the trial court properly denied a challenge for cause to Prospective Juror T. | Garrison asserts juror was biased in favor of law enforcement | Garrison contends juror could not be impartial due to ties to law enforcement | No abuse; trial court could determine juror would be fair and impartial based on record |
Key Cases Cited
- Medina v. People, 114 P.3d 845 (Colo. 2005) (juror questions permissible with safeguards)
- People v. Evans, 710 P.2d 1167 (Colo. App. 1985) (juror misconduct and new trial standards)
- People v. Sandoval, 733 P.2d 319 (Colo. 1987) (standard for dismissing juror for cause)
- People v. Vigil, 718 P.2d 496 (Colo. 1986) (bias and impartiality standards for jurors)
- People v. Bieber, 835 P.2d 542 (Colo. App. 1992) (CRE 606 extraneous information discussion in verdict setting)
- Harlan, 109 P.3d 616 (Colo. 2005) (extraneous information and juror questioning context)
- Hape v. State, 903 N.E.2d 977 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (text messages intrinsic to admissible cell phone evidence)
- United States v. Bush, 47 F.3d 511 (2d Cir. 1995) (juror questioning context from federal view)
- Collins v. United States, 226 F.3d 457 (6th Cir. 2000) (complex cases may warrant juror questions)
- Drammeh v. State, 285 Ga. App. 545 (Ga. App. 2007) (cell phone evidence and deliberations context)
- People v. Taylor, 2012 COA 91 (Colo. App. 2012) (call history search and evidentiary scope)