271 P.3d 537
Colo. Ct. App.2011Background
- Juarez was convicted by a jury of vehicular homicide, DUI, and careless driving; a new-trial motion was denied.
- The district court found the first verdicts inconsistent and polled the jury, then provided additional instructions and sent the jury back for deliberation.
- The first verdicts were not unanimous, rendering them invalid, and the second verdicts raised further concerns about validity.
- The jury ultimately returned a second set of verdicts: vehicular homicide, DUI, and careless driving; DUI and DWAI merged into vehicular homicide later.
- Juarez challenged the inconsistent verdicts and prosecutorial misconduct; the district court denied relief.
- The court reversed, remanded for a new trial, and did not reach some ancillary claims (Allen instruction and prosecutorial misconduct) because of the CRE 606(b) violation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the initial verdicts were legally enforceable | Juarez argues initial verdicts were inconsistent and unenforceable. | People contend initial verdicts were not legally defective on their face. | Unanimity lacking; initial verdicts unenforceable; reversed and remanded. |
| Whether polling violated CRE 606(b) and tainted the verdicts | Juarez claims polling probed deliberations in violation of CRE 606(b). | People argue polling was permissible and harmless. | CRE 606(b) violated; second verdicts unreliable; reversal and remand. |
| Whether the district court should have given a modified Allen instruction | Juarez contends the court should instruct jurors under Allen for timely verdicts. | People maintain no modified Allen instruction was necessary. | We do not address this issue on remand; declined due to CRE 606(b) error. |
| Whether prosecutorial misconduct requires reversal | Juarez asserts closing arguments contained prosecutorial misconduct. | People deny reversible error from closing. | Not reached on remand due to CRE 606(b) violation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dunn v. United States, 284 U.S. 390 (U.S. 1982) (consistency of verdicts not essential if evidence supports guilty verdicts)
- People v. Frye, 898 P.2d 559 (Colo.1995) (inconsistent verdicts permissible if evidence supports each verdict)
- Stewart v. Rice, 47 P.3d 316 (Colo.2002) (jurors' deliberations are protected; CRE 606(b) exceptions apply)