People v. Thomas
2014 COA 64
| Colo. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Single-vehicle crash after a night of heavy drinking killed one passenger and severely injured five others; defendant Noah Ray Thomas was tried for vehicular homicide and multiple counts of vehicular assault.
- Prosecution's theory: defendant was the driver, missed a turn, exited the wreck with his brother, and failed to summon police or medical help; several passengers identified defendant as the driver.
- Defendant testified and contradicted several prior statements, including blaming another passenger (H.F.) for driving and admitting he intended to tell the court he had a job to get bond relief.
- At trial, the court admitted: (1) J.L.’s prior inconsistent statements and identifications that defendant was driving; (2) testimony about defendant’s silence when accused of driving (adoptive admission); and (3) an audiotape in rebuttal showing defendant told his mother he planned to “lie” about employment.
- After a first hung jury, a second jury convicted defendant; he received a 12-year sentence. The court of appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Prosecution's Argument | Thomas's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Challenge for cause of a prospective juror | Juror excusal for hardship under § 18-71-121 was proper given age, work/sleep schedule, and family duties | Excusal improperly granted (effectively gave prosecution extra peremptory); juror bias claim not shown; no "actual hardship" | No abuse of discretion; dismissal permissible for hardship (statutory standard met) |
| Admissibility of J.L.’s prior inconsistent statements | Statements were inconsistent with J.L.’s trial testimony (claims of lack of memory) and admissible under § 16-10-201(1) and Confrontation Clause not violated | Foundational requirements not met; Confrontation and hearsay concerns | Admitted properly: prior statements were inconsistent, witness available, and confrontation rights preserved |
| Admission of defendant’s silence (visit to hospital) | Silence in a noncustodial setting was admissible as an adoptive admission (witness heard, understood, defendant could have denied) | Admission infringed Fifth Amendment right to silence and was not a true adoptive admission because of emotional impediment | No constitutional error: silence was noncustodial; trial court properly found factors supporting adoptive admission |
| Admission of audiotape/rebuttal about false employment statement; CRE 608(b) challenge | Defendant opened the door by testifying inconsistently; extrinsic evidence to specifically contradict redirect testimony admissible under the doctrine of specific contradiction despite CRE 608(b) | CRE 608(b) barred extrinsic evidence of specific acts; submission violated character/impeachment rules | Court allowed rebuttal audiotape: specific contradiction doctrine applies and CRE 608(b) did not bar extrinsic contradiction evidence |
| Cumulative error claim | — | Multiple trial errors cumulatively warrant reversal | No reversible errors found; cumulative-error claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Walder v. United States, 347 U.S. 62 (1954) (government may introduce extrinsic evidence to contradict defendant’s testimony under "specific contradiction")
- People v. Cole, 654 P.2d 830 (Colo. 1982) (defendant’s direct testimony can open the door to prejudicial rebuttal evidence)
- People v. Segovia, 196 P.3d 1126 (Colo. 2008) (CRE 608(b) governs inquiry into specific instances of conduct for impeachment purposes)
- Salinas v. Texas, 133 S. Ct. 2174 (2013) (Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination does not extend to pre‑custodial silence in a noncustodial setting)
- People v. Quintana, 665 P.2d 605 (Colo. 1983) (failure to deny an accusation may be admissible as an adoptive admission when an innocent person would naturally deny)