People v. Trammell, 2014 COA 34

Defendant Gregory Trammell, while hospitalized after a suicide attempt, was guarded in his hospital room by a sheriff's deputy (legs shackled; hands unrestrained).
After being unshackled for a bathroom trip, defendant struck the deputy with a metal towel bar, struggled (allegedly attempted to take deputy's gun), and struck nurses; one nurse suffered a laceration requiring stitches and lasting memory effects.
About 30 minutes after the incident, defendant told the hospital chaplain he had planned the altercation; at trial he testified he swung the bar hoping the deputy would shoot him.
A jury convicted Trammell of first-degree assault and two counts of second-degree assault against the deputy, and second-degree assault against a nurse; the court imposed consecutive sentences.
On appeal Trammell argued (1) the chaplain’s testimony was barred by the clergy-communicant privilege, and (2) the trial court misunderstood the applicable sentencing ranges.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (People)	Defendant's Argument (Trammell)	Held
Whether clergy-communicant privilege barred chaplain testimony	Chaplain testimony admissible because communications were not privileged under the statute	Statements to the hospital chaplain were privileged confidential communications and should have been excluded	Privilege inapplicable: communication not shown to be confidential (guard present; no privacy precautions) and not shown to be made in course of discipline by religious body; chaplain testimony admissible
Whether trial court misapprehended sentencing range	Prosecutor’s statement that defendant faced a minimum of 15 years was correct given mandatory consecutive sentences for separate violent crimes	Trial court misunderstood sentencing ranges, resulting in sentence error	No misapprehension: statutory ranges are 10–32 years (1st deg.) and 5–16 years (2nd deg.); consecutive service required; sentence within correct ranges and court reviewed presentence report

People v. Turner, 109 P.3d 639 (Colo. 2005) (statutory privilege interpretation reviewed de novo; privileges strictly construed)
Davis v. People, 310 P.3d 58 (Colo. 2013) (abuse of discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
People v. Tucker, 282 P.3d 194 (Colo. App. 2009) (confidentiality requires reasonable expectation communications will be treated as confidential)
Wesp v. Everson, 38 P.3d 191 (Colo. 2001) (attorney-client privilege confidentiality standard informing similar analysis)
United States v. Webb, 615 F.2d 828 (9th Cir. 1980) (presence of security officer destroyed confidentiality of prison chaplain confession)
State v. Pulley, 636 S.E.2d 231 (N.C. Ct. App. 2006) (third-party presence can negate clergy-communicant privilege)