People v. Medrano-Bustamante
412 P.3d 581
Colo. Ct. App.2013Background
- Defendant Medrano-Bustamante, Frias, and 15-year-old A.S. attended a barbeque; after leaving in defendant's car they were in a single-car crash; A.S. died and Frias was injured.
- Defendant faced DUI, vehicular homicide-DUI, vehicular assault-DUI, and two counts of leaving the scene; identity of the driver was contested at trial.
- Defendant argued A.S. was driving; the People argued defendant was driving; jury convicted defendant on all charged counts and a lesser offense of permitting a vehicle to be operated in an unlawful manner.
- The trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of twelve years in prison.
- On appeal, court remands to merge the SB injury leaving scene conviction into the death leaving scene conviction, vacate the SB injury sentence, and correct the mittimus; otherwise, judgment affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DUI is a lesser included offense of vehicular assault-DUI or vehicular homicide-DUI | People contend DUI may merge under strict elements. | Medrano-Bustamante argues DUI is a lesser included offense and should merge. | DUI is not a lesser included offense; separate convictions may stand. |
| Admissibility of BAC lab reports and confrontation rights | Bullcoming/Marshall require confrontation of certifying analyst; report admitted via supervisor. | Confrontation rights violated by surrogate testimony and 16-3-309(5). | No constitutional or statutory violation; supervisor's testimony satisfied confrontation; 16-3-309(5) waiver applies; testimony admissible. |
| Whether A.S.'s hearsay statements were testimonial | Statements were testimonial and violated confrontation. | Statements were testimonial or not; defense theory relies on them. | Statements were nontestimonial; Confrontation Clause not implicated. |
| Admission of Dr. Wilkerson's expert testimony and gatekeeping | Dr. Wilkerson's opinions are admissible as reliable forensic pathology. | Trial judge improperly acted as advocate; reliability/qualification contested. | Court did not abuse its gatekeeping role; testimony properly admitted. |
| Multiplicity of two leaving-the-scene convictions | Convictions for leaving the scene of an accident regarding two victims are proper separate offenses. | Unit of prosecution is the number of accident scenes; two convictions for one accident violate double jeopardy. | Unit of prosecution is the number of accident scenes; convictions merge; remand to merge and vacate sentence for serious bodily injury leaving scene. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Cruthers, 124 P.3d 887 (Colo.App.2005) (DUI not a lesser included offense of vehicular DUI offenses; separation of offenses depends on statute)
- People v. Grassi, 192 P.3d 496 (Colo.App.2008) (DUI vs. vehicular offense distinctions for merger analysis)
- People v. Zubiate, 2013 COA 69 (Colo.App.2013) (concedes interpretive approach but climbs into plain-meaning analysis)
- People v. Abiodun, 111 P.3d 462 (Colo.2005) (statutory structure informs multiple offenses; poetry of offense separation)
- Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 (2011) (testimony by surrogate analyst violated confrontation rights)
- Marshall v. People, 2013 CO 51 (Colo.2013) (laboratory supervisor testimony can satisfy confrontation when properly connected)
- Cropper v. People, 251 P.3d 434 (Colo.2011) (confrontation and lab reports; integration with Bullcoming)
- People v. Vigil, 251 P.3d 442 (Colo.App.2010) (elements and merger considerations in vehicular offenses)
- People v. Lehnert, 131 P.3d 1104 (Colo.App.2005) (harmless error assessment for admitted res gestae or other evidence)
- People v. Glover, 893 P.2d 1311 (Colo.1995) (maximization of sentence when evaluating multiplicity and related issues)
- Hernandez, 250 P.3d 568 (Colo.2011) (duty to identify as driver; reporting duties in accident cases)
- Schmuck v. United States, 489 U.S. 705 (1989) (elements-focused test for lesser included offenses)
- Bertrand v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, 872 P.2d 223 (Colo.1994) (definitions of motor vehicle in different statutes can signal legislative intent)
- United States v. Nacchio, 555 F.3d 1234 (10th Cir.2009) (gatekeeping role of trial court for expert testimony)
- People v. Trevizo, 181 P.3d 375 (Colo.App.2007) (testimonial vs non-testimonial considerations; de novo review)