People v. Morales
2012 COA 2
Colo. Ct. App.2012Background
- Morales convicted by jury of second degree burglary of a dwelling and theft; conviction affirmed on appeal.
- Stuart Street house purchased by Cheek for renovation with intent to sell; house vacant at night/weekends.
- Around Aug 11–14, 2006, tools worth about $5,000 disappeared; no signs of forced entry.
- A hand-rolled cigarette butt found in the Stuart kitchen matched Morales' DNA; CODIS match obtained.
- Morales stopped in Cedar Avenue incident (Aug 26, 2006) with tools in his van; Cedar case led to additional charges; Cedar incident admitted under CRE 404(b) as other acts.
- DNA evidence and related testimony linked Morales to the Stuart burglary; trial court denied defense stipulation requests; trial proceeded with DNA testimony without CODIS mention by witnesses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| DNA stipulation admissibility | Morales argues DNA match should be stipulated. | Stipulation would mislead; risk of unfair prejudice. | Trial court did not abuse discretion; DNA testimony admissible. |
| Admissibility of Cedar incident under CRE 404(b) | Evidence shows common plan/operandi. | Evidence overly prejudicial and not necessary for identity. | Court properly admitted limited 404(b) evidence for intent, modus operandi, and common plan. |
| Limiting instruction and closing argument usage | Prosecution could rely on Cedar evidence within limits. | Prosecutor exploited bad character inference. | Prosecutor's closing did not improperly exploit the inference; limiting instruction adequate. |
| Sufficiency of entry into Stuart home | DNA plus circumstantial proof show entry. | Stuart home not a dwelling or entry insufficient. | Evidence sufficient to show entry into a dwelling. |
| Whether Stuart home qualifies as a dwelling | Statutory definition expansive; renovation supports habitation use. | Renovation site not a dwelling. | Stuart home qualifies as a dwelling under Colorado statute. |
Key Cases Cited
- Old Chief v. United States, 148 F.3d 1196 (U.S. 1997) (statuatory evidentiary stipulations and probative value balancing guidance)
- Martin v. People, 738 P.2d 789 (Colo. 1987) (stipulations and probative value vs. prejudice)
- People v. Clary, 950 P.2d 654 (Colo. App. 1997) (discretion in evidentiary rulings under CRE 404(b))
- People v. Rath, 44 P.3d 1033 (Colo. 2002) (Spoto framework for admissibility of other acts evidence)
- Spoto v. People, 795 P.2d 1314 (Colo. 1990) (Spoto test for CRE 404(b) admissibility)
- People v. Harland, 251 P.3d 515 (Colo. App. 2010) (DNA evidence weight and relevance; identity considerations)
- People v. Jiminez, 651 P.2d 395 (Colo. 1982) (expansive interpretation of dwelling under burglary statute)
- Cooper v. People, 973 P.2d 1234 (Colo. 1999) (common-law burglary vs. statutory expansion; habitation focus)
- Sloan v. People, 65 Colo. 456, 176 P. 481 (1918) (early expansive view of burglary as offense against property)
- Fuentes v. People, 258 P.3d 320 (Colo. App. 2011) (burglary and dwelling interpretation context)
- People v. Nichols, 920 P.2d 901 (Colo. App. 1996) (expansive application of dwelling concept)
- People v. Germany, 41 Colo. App. 304, 586 P.2d 1006 (1978) (expansive interpretation of dwelling-related issues)
- Munoz v. State, 937 So.2d 686 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006) (dissent persuasive on 'intended to be used' habitation)
- Silva v. Illinois Apartment Univ., 256 Ill.App.3d 414, 628 N.E.2d 948 (Ill. App. 1993) (dwelling = habitable space under renovation)