2015 COA 110
Colo. Ct. App.2015Background
- Mark Terhorst hosted a large birthday gathering at his multi‑story Lakewood home attended by an estimated 150–200 teenagers; neighbors called police reporting underage drinking and possible guns.
- Officers arrived an hour after the first call; juveniles were seen fleeing and an officer observed beer cans outside and partygoers inside appearing to drink from cups and beer cans.
- Terhorst answered the door, became confrontational, was handcuffed and placed in a patrol car after an officer prevented the door from closing; officers then entered and cleared the home and found numerous cups, bottles, and beer cans containing alcohol.
- Terhorst was charged with eight counts of contributing to the delinquency of a minor (four later dismissed) and one child abuse count (dismissed); he was tried on four remaining counts and convicted by a jury.
- On appeal Terhorst argued (1) the trial court improperly denied a fifth peremptory challenge and (2) the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence seized after the warrantless entry into his home.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendant was denied his fifth peremptory challenge under §16‑10‑104 and Crim. P. 24 | People: defense waived further challenges by passing; court properly enforced Crim. P. 24(d)(4) mechanics | Terhorst: waiver should not preclude use of remaining peremptories; rule’s nonreduction clause preserves total challenges | Court: preserved for appeal; rule allows a waived challenge to be exercised later only if a new juror is later called; no abuse of discretion — denial affirmed |
| Whether warrantless entry/search of home violated Fourth Amendment (motion to suppress) | People: entry justified — emergency aid or exigent circumstances (risk evidence would be destroyed) | Terhorst: no consent, no exigency or emergency; officers should have obtained a warrant | Court: entry justified under the exigent‑circumstances (risk of imminent destruction of alcohol evidence corroborated by calls, fleeing minors, visible containers); suppression properly denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Mendez v. People, 986 P.2d 275 (Colo. 1999) (articulates destruction‑of‑evidence exigent‑circumstances test)
- People v. Crawford, 891 P.2d 255 (Colo. 1995) (probable cause plus articulable basis for belief evidence will be destroyed supports exigency)
- Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452 (2011) (knock‑and‑announce contact is no greater than a private citizen; discusses exigent‑circumstances principles)
- People v. Wehmas, 246 P.3d 642 (Colo. 2010) (likelihood of imminent destruction must be real and immediate)
- People v. Allison, 86 P.3d 421 (Colo. 2004) (outlines emergency‑aid exception limits)
- People v. Pacheco, 175 P.3d 91 (Colo. 2006) (probable cause may be established by officer corroboration of citizen reports)
- People v. Bustam, 641 P.2d 968 (Colo. 1982) (occupants’ awareness of police closing in is relevant to exigency)