People v. Robinson
2017 COA 128
Colo. Ct. App.2017Background
- Defendant Marcus Lee Robinson was tried on multiple sexual-assault, attempted sexual-assault, and unlawful sexual-contact charges arising from an incident at a party where two women (A.M. and E.G.) were sleeping or incapacitated.
- E.G. testified she awakened and observed conduct involving Robinson and A.M.; A.M. was later examined and had no internal/external genital injuries; DNA on A.M. was an unmatchable trace.
- Robinson admitted he asked A.M. for sex and sent an apologetic text to A.M.’s roommate; he denied sexual contact and denied contact with E.G.
- The jury acquitted Robinson of the most serious completed sexual-assault counts and of charges related to E.G., but convicted him of two counts of unlawful sexual contact and two counts of attempted sexual assault as lesser-included offenses; he was sentenced under Colorado’s Sex Offender Lifetime Supervision Act.
- During opening statement the prosecutor said, in graphic terms, that the jury would see “a dark penis going into a white body”; defense counsel did not object at trial. On appeal the Colorado Court of Appeals found these race-based statements improperly appealed to racial prejudice and reversed for a new trial. The court also addressed related alleged prosecutorial misconduct (insinuation of infidelity).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prosecutor’s race-based, graphic remark in opening (racial appeal) | The State argued race reference could be relevant to explain why a witness could see acts (contrast in complexion) and was not intended to inflame prejudice. | Robinson argued the prosecutor’s description was an improper appeal to racial prejudice requiring reversal. | The court held the graphic race-based statement was flagrantly improper, could reasonably be understood as appealing to racial prejudice, and warranted reversal. |
| Standard of review / Plain-error doctrine (failure to object at trial) | The State argued mitigating factors (brief remark, not repeated, short trial, acquittals on major counts) undercut claim of plain error. | Robinson argued that even without contemporaneous objection the statements were obvious error undermining trial fairness. | The court applied plain-error review and concluded the misconduct was obvious and so tainted the trial that reversal and a new trial were required. |
| Prosecutor’s insinuation about defendant’s infidelity (text and living situation) | The State argued commentary about the text apology and reasonable inferences from evidence were proper response to defendant’s closing. | Robinson argued insinuations that he was cheating on a woman he lived with were irrelevant and prejudicial. | The court held the prosecutor’s insinuation about uncharged infidelity was improper; on retrial such evidence/argument should be limited to logically related matters and excluded if irrelevant. |
Key Cases Cited
- Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78 (prosecutor’s duty is as a minister of justice, not merely to win)
- Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado, 137 S. Ct. 855 (race-related bias requires added precaution; courts must guard against racial prejudice)
- Harris v. People, 888 P.2d 259 (Colo. 1995) (prosecutorial remarks invoking bias are improper and violate due process/right to impartial jury)
- Domingo-Gomez v. People, 125 P.3d 1043 (Colo. 2005) (standards for when prosecutorial misconduct is "flagrant")
- McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279 (race-based prejudice in criminal justice undermines jury protections)