People v. Santana
255 P.3d 1126
| Colo. | 2011Background
- Undercover officers conducted a January 2007 sting in which Santana allegedly sold crack cocaine to an officer who recorded the encounter and had the substance tested.
- The officer’s field test and a crime-laboratory presumptive test indicated cocaine; the substance was then sent for further analysis.
- At trial, the prosecution presented the officer’s testimony, the electronic recordings, and the lab report; the defense admitted a field test had indicated cocaine.
- Santana called a forensic toxicology expert who testified that the prosecution’s tests were screening tests and that conclusive tests (eg, GC-MS) would be needed to prove crack cocaine.
- Defense counsel established that the defense expert could perform conclusive tests and that he had the equipment and past testing capability, suggesting the defense could have obtained exonerating results.
- The prosecutor cross-examined the defense expert about the possibility of conducting conclusive tests and questioned whether the defense expert would have performed such tests; defense moved for mistrial, which the trial court denied; jury instructions and closing arguments framed the burden of proof as on the state; Santana was convicted and the Court of Appeals reversed, ultimately to be reviewed by the Colorado Supreme Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the prosecutor’s cross-examination and closing argument shift the burden of proof to Santana? | Santana | State | No burden shift; actions viewed in context did not transfer the burden to Santana. |
| Did the trial court abuse its discretion in denying a mistrial based on alleged burden-shifting conduct? | Santana | State | No abuse of discretion; mistrial denial affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Clark, 232 P.3d 1287 (Colo. 2010) (prosecution cannot place burden on defendant; probing expert testimony may imply burden but not shift)
- People v. Medina, 190 Colo. 225 (Colo. 1976) (preservation of presumption of innocence and burden on state)
- Bloom v. People, 185 P.3d 797 (Colo. 2008) (strict standard for mistrial relief when prejudice is substantial)
- People v. McKeel, 246 P.3d 638 (Colo. 2010) (jury presumed to follow court instructions; burden-shifting review contextual)
- United States v. Vazquez-Botet, 532 F.3d 37 (1st Cir. 2008) (assessing burden-shifting remarks in light of whole record)