People v. Larsen
2015 COA 157
Colo. Ct. App.2015Background
- Victims A.H. and K.H. lived with defendant Emmett Larsen; child-protective interviews led to allegations that Larsen touched A.H. (breast and vaginal area) while K.H. initially denied abuse.
- At trial A.H. recanted part of earlier statements, K.H. gave mixed testimony, and a taped phone call showed some admission about touching a breast.
- Jury acquitted on the K.H. count but convicted Larsen on two counts related to A.H.; he was sentenced to eight years to life.
- Midtrial a printed and online newspaper article was published containing prejudicial information about alleged prior sexual abuse of another child (S.L.) — including allegations of intercourse beginning at age two — that was not admitted at trial.
- Defense asked the court to poll the jurors about exposure to the article; the court refused, relying on prior admonitions to jurors not to read media.
- The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding the trial court abused its discretion by declining to poll the jury and that the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; it also addressed a cross-examination ruling likely to recur at retrial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court should have polled jurors after midtrial news article | Admonitions were sufficient; jurors would reveal exposure if any | Poll jurors under Harper to determine exposure and prejudice | Court abused discretion by not polling; article was prejudicial and polling required; reversal warranted |
| Whether constitutional objection was preserved | Specific constitutional claim not raised; review for plain error | Preserved by requesting Harper analysis and jury polling | Preserved — Harper analysis was invoked; constitutional claim addressed on appeal |
| Whether exclusion of cross-examination about DHS custody attempt violated confrontation rights | Limiting questions was proper to avoid collateral issues; defendant could cover credibility matters through other testimony | Exclusion prevented impeachment about threats and bias tied to custody dispute | No abuse of discretion; defendant could impeach witnesses about custody dispute and threats without delving into collateral dependency proceedings |
| Sufficiency of pattern-of-abuse verdict (whether multiple incidents found) | -- | Jury did not specify multiple incidents; challenges sufficiency | Not decided on merits because conviction vacated on other grounds; issue mooted by retrial |
Key Cases Cited
- Harper v. People, 817 P.2d 77 (Colo. 1991) (adopts three-step test for midtrial juror exposure to prejudicial publicity)
- Dunlap v. People, 173 P.3d 1054 (Colo. 2007) (harmless-error standard for constitutional errors)
- Liggett v. People, 135 P.3d 725 (Colo. 2006) (standard for determining whether reversible error occurred)
- Blecha v. People, 962 P.2d 931 (Colo. 1998) (prejudice standard quoted in harmless-error analysis)
- Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275 (1993) (framework for assessing whether verdict is attributable to error)
- People v. Novitskiy, 81 P.3d 1070 (Colo. App. 2003) (discussion of prejudicial innuendo from evidence of similar acts)
- People v. Garner, 806 P.2d 366 (Colo. 1991) (treatment of other-crimes evidence under propensity concerns)
- United States v. Gaggi, 811 F.2d 47 (2d Cir. 1987) (quoted source for the three-step Harper process)