People v. Glasser
2011 WL 1168286
Colo. Ct. App.2011Background
- In 1996, defendant abducted a woman walking home in Denver, pulled her into his van, pointed a gun, raped her, and abandoned her behind a building next to a dumpster.
- A rape kit yielded a semen sample; the case lay inactive until eight years later when a DNA database match linked defendant to the crime.
- Defendant was charged under 1996 Colorado statutes with aggravated first degree sexual assault (physical force and threats) and second degree kidnapping, with a jury finding a deadly weapon was used during the sexual assault.
- At sentencing, the trial court merged the two sexual assault convictions and, relying on the deadly weapon finding, imposed 30-year aggravated sentences for both the sexual assault and kidnapping, to run consecutively plus five years of parole.
- On appeal, defendant challenges the DNA suppression ruling, admission of other acts evidence, denial of a UMDDA dismissal motion, admission of expert testimony, and sentencing, with the court affirming in part, reversing in part, and remanding for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| DNA suppression ruling | Glasser contends DNA evidence should be suppressed as fruit of an invalid plea. | Glasser argues due process violation taints the DNA evidence. | No suppression; not a due process consequence warranting exclusion. |
| Admission of other acts evidence | People contend prior acts show lack of consent and support motive/identity. | Glasser contends prejudicial and improper to prove character. | Admissible under CRE 404(b) for modus operandi and lack of consent; probative value not outweighed by prejudice. |
| Dismissal under UMDDA | People argue detainer notification delays were harmless and non-prejudicial. | Glasser claims prejudice from detainer delay in terms of confinement and speedy trial rights. | No reversible error; delay not prejudicial; dismissal not required. |
| Expert testimony admissibility | Expert on victim trauma aids jury understanding of evidence. | Testimony risks bolstering victim credibility and is unduly prejudicial. | Admissible; testimony limited, relevant, and not unduly prejudicial. |
| Sentencing—consecutive vs concurrent | Consecutive sentences appropriate given separate acts and evidence for each conviction. | Consecutive sentencing improper if acts are part of a single episode or identical evidence. | Consecutive sentences affirmed for sexual assault and kidnapping; kidnapping aggravated sentence reversed and remanded for resentence due to improper Blakely analysis. |
Key Cases Cited
- Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (U.S. 1971) (plea agreements require voluntary, knowing, intelligent pleas with enforceable promises)
- Craig v. People, 986 P.2d 951 (Colo. 1999) (enforcement of plea promises; due process safeguards)
- Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (U.S. 2009) (exclusionary rule limits and deterrence considerations)
- Blehm v. People, 983 P.2d 779 (Colo. 1999) (exclusionary rule limited to police misconduct; court errors not always excluded)
- People v. Bonilla-Barraza, 209 P.3d 1090 (Colo. 2009) (mixed question review in suppression; due process implications)
- Lopez v. People, 113 P.3d 713 (Colo. 2005) (Blakely-compliant vs Blakely-exempt aggravating facts in sentencing)