People v. Martinez, 2015 COA 37

Victim saw a man on her second-floor roof trying to enter her bathroom window in the morning; the man fled when seen.
Officer Lesh found Martinez hiding in bushes near the house within ~25 minutes; Martinez had an injured right foot and said he twisted his ankle while jogging.
The victim viewed Martinez at the scene (a one-on-one showup) and later identified him at trial.
Dr. Stafford examined Martinez at the hospital, diagnosed a fractured right heel, and testified that the injury could be from a fall and was inconsistent with a simple ankle twist.
Martinez was convicted of attempted first-degree criminal trespass, third-degree criminal trespass, and criminal mischief; the court sentenced him to community corrections and ordered restitution for a damaged window screen ($16.95) and for installing bars on the window ($489). Martinez appealed convictions and restitution.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of on-scene showup identification	Showup was timely, non-suggestive, and reliable	Showup was unnecessarily suggestive and violated due process	Court upheld admission (no due-process violation); even if error, harmless beyond a reasonable doubt (identification supported by other evidence)
Physician-patient privilege / Dr. Stafford testimony	Testimony admissible under reporting statute exception because doctor had reason to believe injury involved a crime	Testimony violated privilege; no waiver and reporting statute didn’t apply	Testimony admissible under reporting-statute exception; alternatively any error was harmless; concurrence doubts statutory trigger but agrees harmless error
Restitution for bars on window ($489)	Restitution reasonably connected and causally related to defendant’s conduct	Expense was not shown to be proximately caused by defendant; could reflect generalized insecurity	Reversed as to bars: vacated because record lacks findings that expense resulted from a specific, ongoing threat rather than generalized fear; remanded to vacate that part of order
Standard of review for suppression and privilege issues	—	—	Identification reviewed as mixed law/fact; privilege/statutory interpretation reviewed de novo; preserved issues subject to constitutional or harmless-error analysis

Bernal v. People, 44 P.3d 184 (Colo. 2002) (standard for reviewing pretrial identification procedures)
Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (U.S. 1977) (due-process test for suggestive identifications; totality of circumstances)
People v. Smith, 620 P.2d 232 (Colo. 1980) (one-on-one showups disfavored but not per se invalid; factors to assess reliability)
People v. Weller, 679 P.2d 1077 (Colo. 1984) (identification and due-process framework)
Hagos v. People, 288 P.3d 116 (Colo. 2012) (constitutional harmless-error standard)
People v. Covington, 19 P.3d 15 (Colo. 2001) (reporting statute can abrogate physician-patient privilege for medical exam/diagnosis when physician had reason to believe injury involves a crime)
People v. Trujillo, 75 P.3d 1183 (Colo. App. 2003) (reversed restitution for security device where findings did not show specific ongoing threat)
People v. Reyes, 166 P.3d 801 (Colo. App. 2007) (reversed restitution where proximate-cause link speculative)
People in Interest of D.W., 282 P.3d 182 (Colo. App. 2012) (expenses to mitigate generalized insecurity are too attenuated for restitution)
People v. Bryant, 122 P.3d 1026 (Colo. App. 2005) (upheld restitution where court found a specific ongoing threat and made findings)