People v. Sena
2016 COA 161
Colo. Ct. App.2016Background
- Billy Jack Sena was a passenger stopped in a traffic stop; he gave a false name and birthdate to Officer Pfeiler.
- Dispatch returned “no record” for the false identity; officers allowed the vehicle to leave after issuing a warning.
- Officers later viewed an enlarged photo and identified the passenger as Sena; a Larimer County arrest warrant for Sena then appeared in the statewide court database.
- The People charged Sena with one count of attempt to influence a public servant (Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-8-306) for giving a false identity.
- A jury convicted Sena; the district court sentenced him to probation, county jail time, and community service.
- Sena appealed, arguing (1) insufficient evidence (challenging that Pfeiler was a “public servant” and that Sena intended to alter the officer’s action) and (2) error in the court’s judicial notice of the outstanding warrant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a police officer is a “public servant” and whether evidence was sufficient to prove intent to influence a public servant | Police: Officer Pfeiler is a public servant; circumstantial evidence (false name belonging to relative, no-record response, officers let them go, warrant later discovered) supports intent to deceive to avoid arrest | Sena: police officers are not within § 18-8-306’s “public servant” definition and there was no proof he knew of a warrant or intended to alter the officer’s action | Court: police officers fall within the statutory definition of public servant; circumstantial evidence sufficed to infer intent to alter the officer’s actions by deceit; conviction upheld |
| Whether the trial court erred by taking judicial notice of an out-of-county arrest warrant from a statewide database | People: existence of the active warrant is an adjudicative fact capable of accurate and ready determination from a reliable statewide database and thus proper for judicial notice | Sena: warrant arose in another jurisdiction; database accuracy could be disputed; taking notice invaded the jury’s role | Court: judicial notice of the warrant’s existence was proper under CRE 201 because court records are reliably verifiable; taking notice did not improperly decide disputed facts for the jury |
Key Cases Cited
- Clark v. People, 232 P.3d 1287 (Colo. 2010) (standard for sufficiency of evidence and viewing circumstantial evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution)
- People v. Schupper, 140 P.3d 293 (Colo. App. 2006) (actual influence on the public servant is not an element of attempt to influence)
- Quintana v. City of Westminster, 56 P.3d 1193 (Colo. App. 2002) (review of judicial notice for abuse of discretion)
- People v. Orozco, 210 P.3d 472 (Colo. App. 2009) (definition of abuse of discretion for judicial rulings)
- Mun. Subdistrict, N. Colo. Water Conservancy Dist. v. OXY USA, Inc., 990 P.2d 701 (Colo. 1999) (limits on judicial notice when court takes an additional inferential step beyond a record)
- Slate v. Pub. Defender Serv. for the District of Columbia, 31 F. Supp. 3d 277 (D.D.C. 2014) (court may take judicial notice of an arrest warrant as a public record)