People v. Lopez
2016 COA 179
Colo. Ct. App.2016Background
- In 2012 defendant Corey Lopez and victim R.B. had an evening of drinking; R.B. was later found dead and autopsy showed death by manual strangulation. Lopez was charged with first-degree murder (after deliberation) for R.B. and attempted first-degree murder (after deliberation) for S.E., an alleged attempted-murder victim.
- At trial the jury convicted Lopez of first-degree murder (R.B.), attempted first-degree murder (S.E.), reckless endangerment, and third-degree assault (lesser nonincluded offenses as to S.E.).
- The prosecution’s witnesses included R.B.’s mother and brother (surviving immediate family members) who attended the preliminary hearing and trial; defense moved to sequester them under CRE 615 but the court allowed them to remain under victims’ rights statutes and admonished them not to discuss testimony.
- During voir dire the court used a basketball analogy to explain intoxication’s potential effect on intent; the jury ultimately received the correct self-induced intoxication instruction at the close of evidence.
- A prosecutor witness (DeLeon) acknowledged she smoked marijuana that day; defense attempted to ask DeLeon whether S.E. had smoked marijuana that day to attack S.E.’s credibility; the court barred that question as improper impeachment through a third party and because its probative value was outweighed by prejudice/lagging implications.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether victim’s family members may remain in courtroom despite CRE 615 | Victims’ statutory and constitutional rights allow presence at critical stages | Presence risks witnesses conforming testimony; sequestration should apply | Court allowed family to remain; no abuse of discretion given statutory rights, admonishment, and lack of specific showing of risk |
| Whether the court’s basketball analogy on intoxication misled jury about intent element | Court’s overall instructions and admonitions preserve correct law; analogy was harmless if imperfect | Analogy misstated intent focus and could lead jury to assess general intent rather than intent to cause death | Even assuming error, not plain or reversible: jury received correct intoxication instruction and parties argued based on that instruction |
| Whether defense could ask DeLeon whether S.E. had smoked marijuana (impeachment via third party) | Such questioning is relevant to S.E.’s credibility and perception; admissible on cross-exam | Question improperly asks a witness to testify about another witness’s state and, without S.E. testimony, would be misleading/prejudicial | Question excluded as abuse of cross-examination limits would be speculative and unduly prejudicial; defendant could have asked S.E. directly or put evidence in case-in-chief |
| Whether exclusions or limits on cross-examination and sequestration constituted reversible error | Prosecutor and court balanced rights and trial fairness; any limits were reasonable | Limits infringed confrontation and fairness rights and warrant reversal | No reversible error: court did not abuse discretion and any error was harmless given admonitions, cross-examination opportunities, and correct final instructions |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Cohn, 160 P.3d 336 (Colo. App. 2007) (sequestration decisions reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- People v. Villalobos, 159 P.3d 624 (Colo. App. 2006) (purpose of sequestration is to prevent conforming testimony and collusion)
- Wiedemer v. People, 852 P.2d 424 (Colo. 1993) (distinguishing substantive legislative rights from procedural court rules)
- People v. McKenna, 585 P.2d 275 (Colo. 1978) (statute controls over court rules on substantive matters)
- People v. Coney, 98 P.3d 930 (Colo. App. 2004) (victims’ rights to be present at critical stages can limit CRE 615 sequestration)
- People v. Miller, 113 P.3d 743 (Colo. 2005) (plain error standard requires obvious and substantial error undermining trial fairness)
- Merritt v. People, 842 P.2d 162 (Colo. 1992) (scope of cross-examination and harmless error review)
- Yusem v. People, 210 P.3d 458 (Colo. 2009) (all relevant evidence is admissible absent constitutional/statutory/rule exclusion)
- People v. Roberts, 553 P.2d 93 (Colo. App. 1976) (improper to question a witness about drug addiction solely to attack credibility)
- People v. Mandez, 997 P.2d 1254 (Colo. App. 1999) (reasonable inquiry into matters probative of witness credibility is generally relevant)