People v. Manyik
2016 WL 1165332
Colo. Ct. App.2016Background
- Victim was romantically involved with Traci Adams; Adams later lived with defendant Mark Manyik; Adams repeatedly invited the victim to Manyik’s house the night of the shooting.
- Manyik called 911 after the shooting, told the operator he had shot the victim, and was found by police pointing a gun at the victim; the victim later died of a shotgun wound.
- Manyik initially told police the shooting resulted from a struggle; in a later interview he admitted anticipating the victim’s arrival, firing a test shot, and disposing of the victim’s cell phone.
- Indicted for first-degree murder and conspiracy (acquitted of those), convicted by jury of second-degree murder, aggravated robbery (based on taking victim’s cell phone), and tampering with physical evidence; sentenced to concurrent terms.
- On appeal Manyik raised: prosecutorial misconduct (channeling the victim in opening), impermissible amendment of the aggravated robbery charge at trial, refusal to give a defense instruction about evaluating his police statements, an allegedly defective mistaken-belief-of-fact instruction, and exclusion of recorded phone-call statements made while at the police station.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Prosecution) | Defendant's Argument (Manyik) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prosecutorial misconduct — "channeling" victim in opening statement | Opening largely repeated evidence and permissible inferences; not prejudicial | First-person narration assumed victim’s thoughts, inflamed jury sympathy and infringed confrontation/right to cross-examine | Channeling was improper misconduct but not plain error; convictions otherwise unaffected |
| Amendment of information — aggravated robbery statute amended mid-trial | Amendment was form/substantive refinement and did not change charged offense because both subsections are Class 3 felonies | Amendment charged a more serious, per se crime of violence and prejudiced defendant by increasing mandatory sentencing exposure | Amendment impermissible; reversed aggravated robbery conviction and remanded for new trial on that charge |
| Tendered jury instruction re: evaluating Manyik’s police statements (Crane-based) | Standard credibility instruction sufficed; tendered instruction was unnecessary and improperly emphasized select evidence | Jury should be instructed to consider interrogation environment, intoxication, head injury, and interrogation techniques when assessing out-of-court statements | Trial court did not abuse discretion in rejecting the targeted instruction; Crane does not compel a specific jury instruction and selective emphasis was improper |
| Mistaken belief of fact instruction — adequacy | Given instruction mirrored statutory language and was adequate | Instruction failed to fully explain how mistake of fact interacted with self-defense/make-my-day defenses | No plain error; statutory-form instruction proper and defense argued the connection to jury in closing |
| Exclusion of recorded phone-call statements made while Manyik was left alone | Statements were hearsay and not necessary under rule of completeness; not within state-of-mind hearsay exception | Calls were contemporaneous and relevant to explain interview statements; admissible under completeness or exception | Trial court did not abuse discretion: statements were hearsay, completeness inapplicable, and CRE 803(3) did not cover the content; exclusion proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Wend v. People, 235 P.3d 1089 (Colo. 2010) (two-step prosecutorial-misconduct review)
- Estes v. People, 296 P.3d 189 (Colo. App. 2012) (plain-error review when no contemporaneous objection)
- Dunlap v. People, 975 P.2d 723 (Colo. 1999) (golden-rule arguments and prosecutorial misconduct)
- Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683 (U.S. 1986) (defendant may introduce evidence of circumstances surrounding confession)
- Drayden v. White, 232 F.3d 704 (9th Cir. 2000) (criticizing first-person "channeling" narration)
- People v. Hoang, 13 P.3d 819 (Colo. App. 2000) (distinguishing aggravated-robbery subsections and crime-of-violence sentencing)
- People v. Butler, 929 P.2d 36 (Colo. App. 1996) (permitting amendment of statutory citation where charge language controlled)