People v. Mares
2011 Colo. App. LEXIS 487
Colo. Ct. App.2011Background
- Mares was convicted by jury of second degree murder, first degree assault, and felony menacing.
- He parked across from a house where rival gang members were at a party and shot two attendees with a sawed-off shotgun; one died and the other was seriously injured.
- O.M., a party witness, admitted she told Mares the party location and that rival gang members were present during a prior interview; later she acknowledged the same at trial.
- Before trial, Mares moved to suppress O.M.'s statements as coerced; the court found them voluntary after reviewing the interview video.
- Mares sought suppression of jailhouse recorded phone calls; the court held he had notice of recording and that consent or implied consent disposed of wiretap concerns.
- During trial, A.A. refused to testify; the court addressed his Fifth Amendment rights and issued an instruction about his refusal, which Mares challenged on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the jury instruction on A.A.'s refusal reversible error? | Mares argues it impermissibly suggested guilt and violated Confrontation | Mares contends instruction was improper and prejudicial | No reversible error; instruction not disproportionately prejudicial under Newton factors |
| Whether automatic reversal applies for a witness invoking privilege | Newton five-factor test governs; automatic reversal not required | An accomplice invokes privilege, requiring automatic reversal | Totality of circumstances governs; no automatic reversal here |
| Did the trial court err in denying suppression of Mares' jail calls | Wiretap suppression requires exclusion unless consent or notice applies | Statements were unlawfully intercepted absent consent/notice | No error; notice and implied consent due to use of prison phones; consent/notice valid |
| Were O.M.'s statements involuntary and subject to suppression | Statements were coerced and unreliable | Coercive conduct violated due process; statements should be suppressed | Statements were voluntary; no due process violation |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Newton, 966 P.2d 563 (Colo. 1998) (five-factor totality-of-the-circumstances test for privilege-related inferences)
- Namet v. United States, 373 U.S. 179 (1963) (inferences from refusal to testify; cross-examination considerations)
- De Gesualdo v. People, 147 Colo. 426 (Colo. 1961) (automatic reversal considerations; good-faith analysis backdrop)
- Billings v. People, 171 Colo. 236 (Colo. 1970) (good-faith/prosecutorial conduct in privilege scenarios)
- Scheidt v. People, 182 Colo. 374 (Colo. 1973) (use immunity; prosecutorial good faith; no reversal absent bad faith)
- Douglas v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 415 (1965) (limitations on inference from compelled testimony; cross-examination considerations)
- People v. Morton, 189 Colo. 198 (Colo. 1975) (wiretap/consent considerations in interception)
- Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157 (1987) (coercive government conduct and voluntariness under due process)