People v. Novotny
2014 CO 18
| Colo. | 2014Background
- People petitioned for review of Court of Appeals rulings reversing convictions in People v. Novotny and People v. Vigil.
- The intermediary appellate courts had applied an automatic-reversal rule for erroneous challenges for cause that affected peremptory challenges.
- Novotny challenged a district court ruling removing a compensated employee of a public law enforcement agency for cause, affecting his peremptory challenges.
- Vigil challenged two prosecution-for-cause rulings that left the defense with fewer peremptory challenges than the prosecution.
- The Supreme Court overruled the automatic-reversal doctrine and held that reversal is not automatic absent structural error or an outcome-determinative analysis.
- The cases are remanded to determine whether the error was harmless under the appropriate standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Remedy for non-structural error | Novotny and Vigil argue automatic reversal is required | People contend no automatic reversal; analyze outcome determinatively | Automatic reversal overruled; remedy requires harmlessness analysis unless structural error |
| Law-enforcement employment as for-cause basis | Employer status as law enforcement obligates removal for cause | Statutory designation governs when removal is required | Statutory designation governs; employment by a law-enforcement agency qualifies for-cause removal |
| Harmless-error standard applicability | Harmless-error analysis not appropriate for peremptory-challenge impact | Harmless-error framework governs trial errors | Harmless-error framework applies to non-structural errors; automatic reversal not justified |
| Structural vs. trial error distinction | Error affects jury composition beyond trial process | Distinction permits harmless review for most errors | Only structural errors require automatic reversal; others reviewed under outcome-determinative standard |
| Effect on peremptory-challenge rights | Defendant disadvantaged by fewer peremptory challenges | Remedy should reflect the state-law right to peremptory challenges | Right to peremptory challenges not automatically reversible absent structural error or mandated standard |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Macrander, 828 P.2d 234 (Colo. 1992) (automatic reversal for denial of for-cause challenge cannot be deemed harmless)
- People v. Lefebre, 5 P.3d 295 (Colo. 2000) (expands on inherent prejudice and harmless-error limits)
- Dunlap v. People, 173 P.3d 1054 (Colo. 2007) (recognizes importance of peremptory challenges for a balanced jury)
- Rivera v. Illinois, 556 U.S. 149 (U.S. 2009) (loss of peremptory challenge due to good-faith error not constitutional issue)
- Martinez-Salazar v. United States, 528 U.S. 304 (U.S. 2000) (peremptory challenges are non-constitutional tools to achieve impartial jury)
- Rivers v. Illinois, 556 U.S. 148 (U.S. 2009) (states may provide reversible error per se for peremptory-challenge denial)
- Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1999) (limits on harmless-error analysis for structural errors)
- Griego v. People, 19 P.3d 1 (Colo. 2001) (harmless-error framework for trial errors)
- Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279 (U.S. 1991) (distinguishes structural vs. trial errors in due-process analysis)