People v. Robles
302 P.3d 269
Colo. Ct. App.2011Background
- Defendant and victim J.E. dated starting in 2000; in later years the relationship involved physical abuse by Robles.
- By September 2002 J.E. had attempted to end the relationship and had begun dating someone else.
- Between Sept. 19–24, 2002 Robles persistently contacted J.E., followed her, confronted her publicly, and committed thefts; friends testified she feared him.
- On Sept. 24, 2002 J.E. disappeared; a friend heard she would call back and later learned she had gone out the window; a sibling reported her missing.
- J.E.’s body was found Sept. 26, 2002 near an I-76 frontage road in Weld County, with multiple gunshot wounds.
- Defendant was charged with first degree murder, first degree felony murder, second degree kidnapping, harassment by stalking, sexual assault, and a crime of violence; he was convicted and sentenced to life without parole.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Witness disclosure timing | Prosecution delayed disclosure of AR.'s location for safety concerns. | Delay violated right to confrontation and impaired cross-examination. | No abuse of discretion; delay was reasonable and non-prejudicial. |
| Anonymous (numbers) jury | Anonymous/numbered jury necessary for safety. | Procedural rights and voir dire compromised by numbering. | Error to some extent; not reversible under plain error standard. |
| Hearsay testimony | J.E.'s statements to friends/family show state of mind relevant to consent and fear. | Statements were hearsay and violated confrontation. | Court properly admitted non-testimonial statements under state-of-mind and related exceptions. |
| Prosecutorial misconduct in closing | Comments were proper and invited reasonable inferences from evidence. | Some remarks improperly shifted burden or urged guilt by inference. | No improper shifting; any error cured by court's instructions; not reversible. |
| Reasonable doubt instruction | Pattern instruction accurately states standard for reasonable doubt. | Instruction misstated the degree of certainty required. | Instruction found to be proper and consistent with controlling authority. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Vigil, 251 P.3d 442 (Colo.App.2010) (voir dire and anonymous jury considerations in Colorado)
- People v. Hanks, 740 N.W.2d 533 (Mich.App.2007) (numbers jury analysis in state appellate court)
- Sandoval, 788 N.W.2d 195 (Neb. 2010) (anonymous jury analysis balancing safety and fairness)
- Ross, 174 P.3d 628 (Utah 2007) (jury anonymity and presumption of innocence considerations)
- Mansoori, 304 F.3d 635 (7th Cir.2002) (factors for evaluating need to protect jurors)
- Krout, 66 F.3d 1420 (5th Cir.1995) (jury safety considerations in anonymity analysis)
- Vigil, 251 P.3d 442 (Colo.App.2010) (Colorado case cited for voir dire and anonymous jury framework)