People v. Heisler
2017 COA 58
Colo. Ct. App.2017Background
- Heisler and the victim were former intimate partners; after a 2013 breakup the victim asked Heisler to stop communicating in March 2014.
- Heisler continued to contact the victim by texts and letters and traveled uninvited from Florida to Colorado in December 2014; police were called.
- Heisler was charged with felony stalking and misdemeanor harassment (both alleged as domestic violence); a jury acquitted him of stalking and convicted him of harassment.
- At sentencing the court imposed 30 days jail, three years supervised probation (permissible to be served in Florida), and — after finding the conviction included an act of domestic violence — ordered mandatory domestic violence treatment as a condition of probation under § 18-6-801(1)(a).
- Heisler appealed, arguing (1) the trial court erred by admitting text-message printouts because they were not properly authenticated, and (2) the domestic-violence-treatment statute is facially unconstitutional under the Sixth Amendment (Apprendi/Alleyne) because the court — not a jury — made the domestic-violence finding that triggered mandatory treatment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Heisler) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authentication of text messages | Victim’s testimony that printouts accurately depicted messages, recognized number and content, satisfied CRE 901 prima facie standard | Printouts were not properly authenticated because the victim deleted her responses and thus the printouts were not a complete true depiction | Admission was proper: two-part authentication required (printout accuracy + identity of sender shown by at least two indicia); victim’s testimony met the test; deletion of replies affects weight, not authenticity |
| Facial challenge to § 18-6-801(1)(a) under Sixth Amendment (Apprendi/Alleyne) | The statute does not increase the punitive sentence beyond presumptive range; court-ordered treatment is not a punishment triggering Apprendi/Alleyne protections | Court factfinding that underlying crime included domestic violence imposes a mandatory penalty (treatment) beyond presumptive minimum and thus must be found by a jury | Statute upheld: court-ordered domestic violence treatment is not punitive under Mendoza‑Martinez factors, so Apprendi/Alleyne jury-trial rule does not apply; trial court could make domestic-violence finding and impose treatment |
Key Cases Cited
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (facts increasing penalty beyond statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury)
- Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004) (Apprendi applied to sentencing ranges; facts increasing sentence must be found by jury)
- Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013) (facts that increase mandatory minimum must be found by jury)
- Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002) (Apprendi principle applied where judicial factfinding increased exposure to a greater penalty)
- Kennedy v. Mendoza‑Martinez, 372 U.S. 144 (1963) (seven-factor test to decide whether a sanction is punitive)
- People v. Rowland, 207 P.3d 890 (Colo. App. 2009) (statutory community‑notification requirement not punitive for Apprendi purposes)
- People v. Montour, 157 P.3d 489 (Colo. 2007) (discussing Apprendi and statutory maximum context)
- United States v. Hassan, 742 F.3d 104 (4th Cir. 2014) (authentication burden for electronic evidence described as low)