People v. Krueger
2012 COA 80
Colo. Ct. App.2012Background
- Defendant Ryan J. Krueger and co-defendants allegedly killed P.E. after learning she was informing on drug deals.
- Krueger was arrested five years later and charged with first degree murder, conspiracy to commit first degree murder, and a crime of violence.
- Krueger represented himself at trial; a jury convicted him of first degree murder and conspiracy after retrial.
- In an earlier trial, the jury acquitted on the murder and conspiracy charges, and a mistrial was declared on those counts.
- Prior to the first trial, Krueger argued for substitute counsel due to disputes over discovery access and his desire to testify at a suppression hearing; the court found no good cause for substitution.
- On appeal, Krueger contends multiple trial errors, including advisory counsel issues, suppression evidence, prosecutorial misconduct, and denial of mistrial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Right to substitute counsel for discovery disputes | Krueger claims conflict with counsel over discovery warranted substitution. | Disagreement over discovery review undermined effective representation. | No good cause; substitution not warranted. |
| Defendant's right to testify at pretrial suppression hearing | Right to testify should extend to suppression proceedings as crucial to defense. | Counsel should decide whether defendant testifies at suppression hearing. | Right to testify at suppression hearing does not vest in defendant; counsel's strategic decision stands. |
| Probable cause for warrants and suppression rulings | Warrants for wiretaps and cell phone records relied on stale information; suppression should have been granted. | Warrants lacked probable cause due to staleness of information. | Affidavits supported probable cause under totality of the circumstances; no error in denial of suppression. |
| Prosecutorial misconduct during voir dire and opening | Prosecutor referenced non-testifying co-defendant and biased examination of witnesses. | Remarks improperly implied privilege and denigrated pro se defendant’s role. | No abuse of discretion; remarks did not misstate law, inflame passions, or prejudice the jury. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Bergerud, 223 P.3d 686 (Colo. 2010) (waiver of counsel; mixed questions of fact and law)
- Curtis v. People, 681 P.2d 504 (Colo. 1984) (right to testify at trial; due process and opportunity to be heard)
- Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44 (U.S. 1987) (defendant's right to testify; fundamental due process considerations)
- Gannett Co., Inc. v. DePasquale, 443 U.S. 368 (U.S. 1979) (purpose of suppression hearings; evidence exclusion from jury)
- People v. Arguello, 772 P.2d 87 (Colo. 1989) (voluntary, knowing, intelligent waiver to counsel)
- People v. Moody, 630 P.2d 74 (Colo. 1981) (trial strategy considerations in counsel decisions)