People v. Rector
248 P.3d 1196
Colo.2011Background
- Rector and her husband were foster parents to 3-year-old T.D. who suffered a severe head injury in 2004 while in Rector's care.
- Rector claimed she was in the shower when the injury occurred; conflicting testimony over her whereabouts.
- Paramedics found T.D. unconscious with severe head trauma; he was airlifted to a pediatric hospital and diagnosed with non-accidental head trauma.
- Rector was charged with felony child abuse under §18-6-401(1)(a), (7)(a)(III), C.R.S. (2010).
- Rector moved pretrial to restrict medical expert testimony (Shreck-related) focusing on shaken-baby syndrome; the court denied a Shreck hearing and allowed discovery.
- At trial, treating physicians testified that injuries were non-accidental or inflicted; Rector did not object to Dr. Sirotnak’s qualifications or his medical testimony; Rector was convicted of felony child abuse; the court of appeals reversed, prompting Colorado Supreme Court review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by not conducting a Shreck analysis for Dr. Sirotnak’s medical child abuse testimony. | Rector argued the testimony should be tested for reliability under Shreck. | People argued no such challenge was properly raised for Dr. Sirotnak. | No abuse of discretion; pretrial Shreck not required given the specific challenge focusing on Dr. Winston, not Sirotnak. |
| Whether Rector preserved the right to challenge Dr. Sirotnak’s testimony under CRE 704 or required jury instructions on medical vs. legal child abuse. | Rector contends the expert testified to an ultimate legal issue usurping the jury. | People contend there was no contemporaneous objection and no request for such instruction. | Recto did not preserve the issue; no plain error found in the admission of the testimony. |
| Whether the admission of Dr. Sirotnak’s medical child abuse testimony usurped the jury’s role under CRE 704. | Sirotnak’s testimony encroached on the ultimate legal issue. | Testimony did not usurp because the law was properly instructed and the expert avoided stating legal standards. | Not plain error; did not usurp the jury’s role. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Shreck, 22 P.3d 68 (Colo. 2001) (establishes pretrial admissibility analysis (Shreck) for expert testimony)
- People v. Whitman, 205 P.3d 371 (Colo. App. 2007) (trial court may resolve admissibility without an evidentiary hearing when information suffices)
- People v. Martinez, 74 P.3d 316 (Colo. 2003) (admissibility of shaken-baby syndrome under CRE 702; Daubert/Kumho considerations)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (U.S. 1999) ( Daubert framework extended to all expert testimony; trial court must ensure reliability and relevance)
- People v. Kruse, 839 P.2d 1 (Colo. 1992) (waiver rule for trial objections not raised contemporaneously)