People v. Theus-Roberts
2015 WL 1656392
Colo. Ct. App.2015Background
- Defendant Emmanuel C. Theus-Roberts and Josiah Parrish rode together in a cab; Parrish exited first and Theus-Roberts later had the cab return to the earlier location after a long fare run.
- Theus-Roberts paid $80 of a $90 fare, said he would return with the balance, then walked away; shortly after a man (identified at trial as Theus-Roberts) approached the cab, demanded the $80, shot the driver in the chest, and fled.
- Police found Theus-Roberts hiding nearby about an hour after the shooting, arrested him, and conducted a one-on-one showup in which eyewitness R.M. (who had seen a man near the cab from her window) identified him; R.M. had seen only limited facial detail and initially described a dark-skinned person.
- Theus-Roberts was tried and convicted of attempted first-degree murder, first-degree assault, aggravated robbery, second-degree assault, and two violent-crime enhancers; total sentence 80 years.
- On appeal he challenged: (1) denial of suppression of R.M.’s identification (alleged unduly suggestive showup); (2) trial court’s refusal to give special eyewitness-identification instructions (Telfaire-style); (3) admission of a police officer’s lay testimony regarding GSR and fingerprint testing; and (4) giving a complicity instruction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of R.M.’s out-of-court showup ID | State: showup was reasonable and necessary for investigation; totality of circumstances supported reliability | Theus-Roberts: one-on-one showup was unduly suggestive (police showed bag, parked spotlighted suspect at ~40–50 ft, brief view, inconsistencies in description) | Court affirmed denial of suppression: court applied proper totality-of-circumstances test and found the factors (viewing opportunity, attention, consistency, certainty, ~1 hour delay) supported reliability |
| Refusal to give Telfaire eyewitness-identification instructions | State: general credibility instructions suffice; Telfaire not required in Colorado | Theus-Roberts: jurors needed special guidance on eyewitness ID reliability | Court affirmed: general witness-credibility instruction accurately stated law; Colorado precedent permits refusing Telfaire instructions |
| Admission of officer’s testimony on GSR and fingerprint recovery | State: officer’s lay observations about his experience were relevant to explain that negative GSR/fingerprint results are not exculpatory | Theus-Roberts: testimony was irrelevant and required expert qualification under CRE 702 | Court affirmed: testimony was relevant and, even if expert qualification arguable, any error was harmless or plain-error review failed because testimony was cumulative of unobjected expert testimony |
| Giving complicity instruction | State: evidence supported instructing on complicity as alternative theory | Theus-Roberts: insufficient evidence he aided/abetted if Parrish was the shooter | Court affirmed: circumstantial evidence (call placement, both passengers, directions to driver, setup statements) supported complicity instruction; alternatively harmless because principal-liability evidence sufficed |
Key Cases Cited
- Bernal v. People, 44 P.3d 184 (Colo. 2002) (standard of review for mixed fact-law identification rulings)
- People v. Mascarenas, 666 P.2d 101 (Colo. 1983) (one-on-one showups disfavored but permissible when reasonable under circumstances)
- People v. Trujillo, 75 P.3d 1133 (Colo. App. 2003) (factors for assessing suggestive identification under totality of circumstances)
- Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (1977) (due-process test for reliability of identifications and jury role)
- People v. Monroe, 925 P.2d 767 (Colo. 1996) (jury can assess weight of identification despite questionable features)
- People v. Campbell, 814 P.2d 1 (Colo. 1991) (refusing special eyewitness-ID instructions is not error when general credibility instruction given)
- People v. Stewart, 55 P.3d 107 (Colo. 2002) (permitting police lay opinion testimony based on experience; expert qualification required when testimony rests on specialized training)