People v. Thompson, 2017 COA 56

Background

Aaron Thompson was indicted on numerous charges stemming from the disappearance and presumed death of his six‑year‑old daughter A.T. and abuse of other children in the household; jury convicted him on most counts and the court imposed a multi‑decade sentence.
Thompson was indigent; private attorney David Lane had represented him pro bono for ~2 years and wished to continue, but requested state funding for ancillary services (investigators, experts).
The trial court declined to depart from People v. Cardenas and therefore would not authorize state‑funded ancillary services for a defendant represented by private, pro bono counsel; the court appointed the public defender instead.
Thompson argued the court’s action violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice (he claimed a forced choice between Lane and state‑funded services).
The court also addressed separate challenges: statute‑of‑limitations for false reporting counts, numerous evidentiary rulings (hearsay, co‑conspirator and child‑hearsay statements, expert testimony, financial evidence), and imposition of consecutive misdemeanor sentences.

Issues

Issue	People’s Argument	Thompson’s Argument	Held
Whether indigent defendant has a constitutional right to be represented by private counsel who will represent for free and simultaneously require state‑funded ancillary services	State may limit provision of state‑funded ancillary services to defendants represented by public defenders (Cardenas); no Sixth Amendment violation where court followed that rule	Forcing defendant to accept public defender to obtain state‑funded investigators/experts deprived him of counsel of choice under Sixth Amendment	Court affirmed: no unconstitutional denial of counsel of choice; Ake, Caplin & Drysdale, and Gonzalez‑Lopez do not require that public funds pay for ancillary services for privately‑retained (even pro bono) counsel; any failure to consider Chief Justice Directive was harmless. (Majority opinion)
Whether false reporting and conspiracy counts were time‑barred by statute of limitations	Prosecution: offenses continued within limitations period by later false statements to police; thus timely	Thompson: initial false report occurred beyond 18‑month limitation, so counts barred	Held: convictions for false reporting and conspiracy upheld—prosecution proved misrepresentations within limitations period (e.g., shoe‑store identification; coordinated post‑report conduct).
Admissibility of out‑of‑court statements (Ms. Lowe, children, recordings) and confrontation challenges	Prosecution: statements were admissible under exceptions (statements against interest, co‑conspirator statements, child‑hearsay statute, residual exception); many were nontestimonial or otherwise reliable	Thompson: many hearsay and nontestimonial statements lacked indicia of reliability and/or violated Confrontation Clause; some expert testimony improperly vouched for child credibility	Held: trial court did not abuse discretion—findings supported reliability, statements admissible under applicable exceptions and Confrontation Clause principles; expert testimony was proper background/context (not vouching).
Sentencing: consecutive maximum misdemeanor jail terms imposed before prison term	People: consecutive county jail sentences for multiple misdemeanor child‑abuse victims were warranted given severity; statutory exception permitted consecutive misdemeanor before prison after considering factors	Thompson: court failed to justify consecutive misdemeanor sentences and improperly ordered them to run prior to prison sentence	Held: no abuse of discretion—court cited offense seriousness and statutory authority to impose consecutive misdemeanor sentences before prison term.

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Gonzalez‑Lopez, 548 U.S. 140 (right to counsel of choice is constitutionally protected)
Caplin & Drysdale v. United States, 491 U.S. 617 (no Sixth Amendment right to spend another person’s money for counsel/services)
Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (state must provide essential psychiatric assistance when sanity is significant; does not require funds to hire defendant’s own expert)
Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377 (one constitutional right should not be surrendered to assert another — narrow, fact‑specific rule)
People v. Cardenas, 62 P.3d 621 (Colo. 2002) (Colorado interpretation: state‑funded ancillary services available only if defendant is represented by public defender or appointed counsel)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause limits admission of testimonial statements)
Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171 (co‑conspirator statements in furtherance of conspiracy are nontestimonial for confrontation purposes)
McGautha v. California, 402 U.S. 183 (limits on extending Simmons rationale; courts may require difficult choices without necessarily invalidating them)