People v. Gingles
2014 COA 163
| Colo. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Defendant Jack Virgil Gingles borrowed a vehicle later discovered to be stolen; deputies attempted a traffic stop and he fled in a high‑speed pursuit across multiple locations, including residential areas and the interstate.
- After going through barbed wire fences and evading one deputy, the pursuing deputy attempted a PIT maneuver; defendant spun out, continued briefly, then his car broke down.
- Defendant ran across the interstate, entered another motorist's vehicle after allegedly saying he had a gun or would shoot; the motorist exited (she testified she fell while escaping) and defendant drove off; forensic evidence linked defendant to both vehicles.
- Defendant gave a recorded confession admitting involvement but denying a gun in the second vehicle, denying he pushed the driver, and claiming any reference to a gun was about the deputy; he did not testify at trial.
- A jury convicted Gingles of second‑degree kidnapping, robbery (as a lesser included of aggravated robbery), one count of aggravated motor vehicle theft, and two counts of vehicular eluding; he was sentenced to a 20‑year controlling term on the kidnapping count.
- The court later recognized the mittimus incorrectly listed aggravated robbery (prosecutor conceded the error) and directed correction to reflect robbery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jury access to defendant's videotaped confession during deliberations | Jury may have unrestricted access to exhibits admitted into evidence; confession admissible and central | Unfettered access risked undue emphasis; defense asked that jury view video only upon request | Court held historical and persuasive authority supports unrestricted jury access to a voluntary, admissible defendant's confession; no error in allowing unfettered access |
| Robbery instruction language ("against any person") | Instruction as given tracks parties' tender; pattern aggravated robbery language contemplates "any person" in some contexts | Instruction misstated elements by permitting conviction based on force against anyone rather than specifically the victim | Court declined review under invited‑error doctrine because defense counsel drafted and submitted the robbery instruction; claim barred on appeal |
| Double jeopardy / multiplicity of two vehicular eluding convictions | Two counts correspond to separate discrete volitional acts of eluding against officers at different times/places | Single continuous act of eluding should merge into one count | Court affirmed two convictions: unit of prosecution is discrete volitional acts endangering the public; here defendant undertook separate eluding acts (initial eluding both deputies; later eluding after PIT) |
| Mittimus error listing aggravated robbery (contrary to verdict) | Mittimus must mirror jury verdicts; prosecution conceded mistake | Defendant requested correction | Court ordered remand to correct mittimus to show conviction for robbery, not aggravated robbery |
Key Cases Cited
- Frasco v. People, 165 P.3d 701 (Colo. 2007) (addresses jury access to videotaped witness statements and the trial court’s supervisory role)
- DeBella v. People, 233 P.3d 664 (Colo. 2010) (further treatment of jury access to testimonial recordings)
- Ferrero v. People, 874 P.2d 468 (Colo. App. 1993) (recognizes that voluntary defendant confessions have historically been allowed in the jury room)
- Quintano v. People, 105 P.3d 585 (Colo. 2005) (framework for identifying unit of prosecution and merger analysis)
- Olano v. United States, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (plain‑error review standard for unpreserved claims)