People v. Maestas
2014 COA 139M
Colo. Ct. App.2014Background
- Defendant Max Anthony Maestas was convicted by a jury of aggravated robbery, menacing, and eluding police; he appealed.
- A Colorado Court of Appeals division (Maestas I) reversed based on People v. Macrander, concluding the trial court erroneously denied a for-cause challenge to a prospective juror and the defendant exhausted peremptory challenges.
- Colorado Supreme Court decided People v. Novotny overruling Macrander’s automatic-reversal rule and directed reconsideration of Maestas I.
- On remand, this division applied Novotny, considered whether Novotny applies retroactively, and reviewed two denied challenges for cause (Juror H and Juror F).
- Juror H was removed by Maestas with a peremptory challenge; Juror F was not removed, served on the jury, and Maestas did not testify.
- The court concluded Juror H’s erroneous retention was harmless under Novotny but Juror F’s retention required reversal because a biased juror actually served; case reversed and remanded for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | People’s Argument | Maestas’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Novotny applies to this pending appeal / retroactivity | Novotny should apply to appeals pending at decision; not retroactive in a way that violates due process | Applying Novotny retroactively violates due process | Novotny applies to this case; applying it to pending appeals does not violate due process |
| Whether trial court erred denying challenge for cause to Juror H | Denial was proper or harmless because Maestas used a peremptory to remove H | Trial court erred in denying challenge for cause to H | Court abused discretion in denying challenge as to H, but the error was harmless because Maestas removed H with a peremptory |
| Whether trial court erred denying challenge for cause to Juror F | Denial was proper or harmless because defendant had peremptories overall | Trial court erred; F indicated she might hold silence against defendant and was not rehabilitated | Court abused discretion; because Juror F actually served with demonstrated bias, reversal is required and conviction vacated |
| Denial of request for substitute counsel | Trial court did not abuse discretion | Trial court abused discretion in denying new counsel | Not reached on merits because reversal and new trial rendered issue moot |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Novotny, 320 P.3d 1194 (Colo. 2014) (overruled Macrander’s automatic-reversal rule; error depriving a peremptory is subject to outcome-determinative harmlessness analysis)
- People v. Macrander, 828 P.2d 234 (Colo. 1992) (prior rule: automatic reversal when erroneous denial of challenge for cause plus exhaustion of peremptories)
- United States v. Martinez-Salazar, 528 U.S. 304 (2000) (a defendant’s peremptory-strike rights are nonconstitutional; harmlessness analysis applies in certain contexts)
- Krutsinger v. People, 219 P.3d 1054 (Colo. 2009) (standard for when an error requires reversal: reasonable probability the error contributed to the verdict)
- People v. Merrow, 181 P.3d 819 (Colo. App. 2007) (if juror’s statements compel inference of inability to be fair, challenge for cause must be granted absent rehabilitation)