2014 COA 112
Colo. Ct. App.2014Background
- Police responded to a store call that Martin had remained in a restroom for about twenty minutes and employees sought his removal.
- Officers knocked, announced they were police, and told Martin to exit; he emerged agitated and refused to respond to questions.
- Officers ordered Martin to face the wall and conducted a pat-down for officer safety, prompting a struggle and injuries to Martin and an officer.
- Martin was charged with multiple offenses including attempting to disarm a peace officer and resisting arrest; suppression was sought for the stop and pat-down.
- After trial, Martin waived his right to testify; defense presented two witnesses and rested; the court later denied a request to reopen to allow testimony.
- The court remanded for reconsideration of the testimony-reopening issue, applying a new articulated framework for deciding whether a defendant may testify after waiving the right.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the investigatory stop violated the Fourth Amendment | Martin | Martin | Stop upheld; pat-down non-suppressible under Doke grounds |
| Whether the pat-down was permissible under Fourth Amendment or governed by Doke | Martin | Martin | Pat-down not suppressed; admissible under Doke if applicable |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying a late request to testify after waiving the right | Martin | Martin | Remand required; adopt four-factor test for reopening evidence to allow testimony |
| What factors should govern reopening of evidence to allow testimony after waiver | Martin | Martin | Adopt Walker framework: timeliness, character of testimony, effect on proceedings, reasonableness of explanation; consider Curtis advisement timing and waiver |
| Whether the initial suppression ruling can be affirmed on alternative grounds | State | Martin | Affirmed on alternative grounds citing Doke applicability for suppression issue |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Brunsting, 307 P.3d 1073 (Colo. 2013) (deference to suppression findings; standard of review)
- Moody v. People, 159 P.3d 611 (Colo. 2007) (noting appellate capacity to affirm on alternative grounds)
- Curtis, 681 P.2d 504 (Colo. 1984) (waiver of the right to testify; Curtis advisement and competence)
- People v. Doke, 171 P.3d 237 (Colo. 2007) (post-entry assaults; exclusionary rule exceptions)
- Walker, 772 F.2d 1172 (6th Cir. 1985) (four-factor test for reopening evidence to allow testimony)
- Thetford, 676 F.2d 170 (5th Cir. 1982) (reopening considerations for testimony)
- Byrd, 403 F.3d 1278 (11th Cir. 2005) (contextual guidance on reopening with rebuttal considerations)
- Peterson, 233 F.3d 101 (1st Cir. 2000) (balancing value of late testimony against disruption)
- United States v. Reed, 216 P.3d 55 (Colo. App. 2008) (defendant's right to testify and waiver considerations)
- Brooks v. Tennessee, 406 U.S. 605 (U.S. 1972) (defendant's right to testify before close of evidence)