People v. Rogers
2012 WL 5457358
Colo. Ct. App.2012Background
- On July 20, 2009, a driver picked up Rogers at a local motel and police stopped the car for a failed turn signal; officers noted a furtive movement toward the back seat and smelled marijuana.
- The officers discovered three active warrants for Rogers and arrested him; the driver allowed a search of the car, yielding a small black handgun in the back seat.
- The driver told officers the gun had been in Rogers's jacket and that Rogers tried to move the gun; the driver also stated Rogers had been smoking marijuana.
- Rogers denied knowing there was a gun and urged fingerprint testing; he asked how many bullets were in the gun.
- At trial, Rogers was charged with possession of a weapon by a prior offender; neither party subpoenaed the driver, and the gun was not fingerprint-tested; the officer testified to the driver’s statements.
- Defense cross-examination and redirect examination relied on the driver’s statements, and closing arguments emphasized the driver’s statements to the arresting officer.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Confrontation Clause waiver via opening the door | People: defendant opened the door to testimonial evidence | Rogers did not validly waive his confrontation rights | Waiver found; admission upheld |
| Unpreserved issue of prior-conviction impeachment | People: impeachment evidence proper | Rogers preserved error but with different grounds | Plain error not substantial; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (testimonial hearsay excluded unless declarant available for cross-examination)
- Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (U.S. 2006) (police interrogation statements are testimonial)
- United States v. Lopez-Medina, 596 F.3d 716 (10th Cir. 2010) (defendant can waive confrontation rights by opening the door to testimony)
- United States v. Cromer, 389 F.3d 662 (6th Cir. 2004) (Cromer rule on partial confession and waiver considerations)
- Cropper v. People, 251 P.3d 434 (Colo. 2011) (waiver can be inferred from counsel’s failures; strategic decision may waive rights)
- Hinojos-Mendoza v. People, 169 P.3d 662 (Colo. 2007) (confrontation rights can be waived by defense action or inaction)