2025 COA 50
Colo. Ct. App.2025Background
- Kyle R. Schlehuber was convicted of felony driving while ability impaired (DWAI) based on prior DUI convictions following an incident where he parked at a gas station and exhibited signs of intoxication but refused a blood alcohol test.
- At trial, the district court gave the 2022 Colorado model jury instruction on reasonable doubt, to which Schlehuber objected, arguing it improperly lowered the prosecution’s burden of proof.
- The prior model instruction on reasonable doubt included reference to “lack of evidence” and the phrase “hesitate to act,” both omitted in the 2022 version.
- The state used an unredacted record of Schlehuber’s prior Nebraska DUI conviction, which also contained prejudicial information regarding other charges and probation violations.
- Schlehuber appealed, arguing errors in the jury instructions and the admission of the unredacted Nebraska record.
- The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, finding no reversible error in either the instruction or the admission of the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reasonable doubt instruction lacked “lack of evidence” language | No impact; instruction as a whole is sufficient | Omission lowers burden, does not guide jury to acquit if prosecution's case has holes | Omission is not structural error nor required |
| Omission of “hesitate to act” from instruction | Current language is clear and has federal approval | Omission lowers the burden of proof | Omission is permissible if instruction otherwise adequate |
| Use of “firmly convinced” and “real possibility” language | Accurately sets reasonable doubt standard | Undercuts standard, equates reasonable doubt to lesser burden | Language accurately frames reasonable doubt standard |
| Admission of unredacted Nebraska record | Necessary to prove prior conviction; limiting instruction prevents prejudice | Highly prejudicial, irrelevant beyond conviction itself | Error to admit full record, but harmless due to limiting instructions and other evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (U.S. 1970) (establishes that proof beyond a reasonable doubt is constitutional requirement in criminal cases)
- Victor v. Nebraska, 511 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1994) (reviews various formulations of reasonable doubt jury instructions)
- Tibbels v. People, 2022 CO 1 (Colo. 2022) (reiterates functional test for reviewing reasonable doubt instructions)
- People v. Robb, 215 P.3d 1253 (Colo. App. 2009) (approves prior Colorado model instruction on reasonable doubt)
- Johnson v. People, 2019 CO 17 (Colo. 2019) (instructions as a whole must correctly state prosecution’s burden)