People v. McFee
2016 COA 97
Colo. Ct. App.2016Background
- Victim L.E. was found stabbed to death in a residential HIV/AIDS facility; a 15-inch kitchen knife with McFee’s DNA was found under her bedroom door.
- Jonathan McFee, her former long‑term boyfriend, was arrested; he had a key to the residence and was driving the victim’s car when arrested.
- Prior to her death, L.E. told family members that McFee had threatened to kill her and gave a written note to a cousin saying McFee had threatened her and including his driver’s license information.
- At trial the court admitted (a) family members’ testimony recounting L.E.’s statements about threats under Colorado’s residual hearsay exception (CRE 807), and (b) L.E.’s handwritten note; McFee objected to hearsay and confrontation issues.
- The jury convicted McFee of first‑degree murder; McFee appealed, arguing evidentiary errors and Confrontation Clause violations.
Issues
| Issue | People’s Argument | McFee’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of L.E.’s oral statements to family (hearsay/CRE 807) | Statements were trustworthy, spontaneous to close family, material and highly probative of motive and state of mind | Statements are hearsay not falling within an exception | Admitted under CRE 807; court affirmed (statements reliable and probative) |
| Admissibility of L.E.’s written note (Confrontation Clause/testimonial) | Note was not testimonial; general hearsay objection insufficiently specific | Note was testimonial (intended as substitute for testimony), so admission violated Sixth Amendment | Note was testimonial and its admission violated Confrontation Clause, but error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Limitation on cross‑examination of witness Grider about prior incompetency/medication | Exclusion proper as prior incompetency was remote and medication use lacked good‑faith basis; questions would be cumulative | Excluding questions prevented impeachment of Grider’s credibility and impaired confrontation rights | No abuse of discretion; exclusion was proper and not prejudicial |
| Detective’s lay opinion interpreting McFee’s recorded mutterings (CRE 701) | Testimony was lay opinion helpful to jury | Detective merely repeated what jury could hear; improper under CRE 701 and best‑evidence rule | Admission was improper by CRE 701 standards but any error was harmless (jury heard recordings) |
| Expert bloodstain/reconstruction testimony re: attacker known to victim and “overkill” | Testimony was within expert’s scope and helpful; prosecutor allowed to rebut suggestion of confirmation bias | Expert lacked qualification for identity/opinion of motive and “overkill” inference | Court did not abuse discretion on rebuttal about attacker being known; any error on “overkill” was harmless and cumulative of medical examiner’s testimony |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (Confrontation Clause bars testimonial statements without prior cross‑examination)
- Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (distinguishes testimonial statements from statements made to meet an ongoing emergency)
- Ohio v. Clark, 135 S. Ct. 2173 (purpose‑of‑statement test for whether hearsay is testimonial)
- Melendez‑Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (documents and reports can be testimonial)
- Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 (lab reports as testimonial evidence requiring confrontation)
- Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353 (forfeiture by wrongdoing requires intent to prevent testimony)
- Vasquez v. People, 173 P.3d 1099 (Colo. 2007) (standards for residual hearsay exception and reliability assessment)
- Fuller v. People, 788 P.2d 741 (Colo. 1990) (admission of victim’s statements to friends/family under residual exception)