People v. Valdez
405 P.3d 413
Colo. Ct. App.2017Background
- Anton Valdez was convicted by jury of first-degree murder after deliberation and related robbery offenses; sentenced to life without parole for murder and a consecutive 32-year term for aggravated robbery.
- Prosecution introduced DNA from a crime-scene sample matched to a buccal swab taken when Valdez was arrested previously on an aggravated driving-under-restraint charge under Colorado’s Katie’s Law.
- Defense moved to suppress the DNA as an unconstitutional search (arguing the underlying offense was not a "serious" offense under Maryland v. King) and argued expungement procedures were inadequate; also moved to exclude an overhead surveillance video that showed the victim’s dying moments and later sought to limit jury replay of videos during deliberations.
- Trial court denied suppression and admitted the surveillance videos in full; the jury viewed videos during deliberations under court supervision (played by a clerk), without limits on number of replays.
- On appeal Valdez challenged: (1) constitutionality of the DNA collection as applied; (2) admission of the graphic overhead video under CRE 403; (3) the trial court’s refusal to restrict replay of videos during deliberations; and (4) the imposition of a consecutive aggravated-robbery sentence. The Attorney General preserved issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality of DNA collection (Katie’s Law) | Katie’s Law collection constitutional; analogous to King booking procedures | Valdez: taking DNA after arrest for aggravated driving-under-restraint was an unreasonable search because offense not a "serious" one and expungement protections inadequate | DNA collection constitutional as applied; King and People v. Lancaster reasoning control; Katie’s Law not unconstitutional under U.S. or Colorado Constitution |
| Admission of overhead surveillance video showing victim dying (CRE 403) | Video is probative evidence of the crime and admissible despite graphic content | Valdez: video is unduly prejudicial, would inflame jury; adds nothing beyond other angles | No abuse of discretion; video depicted the crime in progress and was not unfairly prejudicial |
| Jury access to and replay of surveillance videos during deliberations | Supervised playback by court clerk is appropriate; videos nontestimonial | Valdez: jurors should be limited to one viewing and admonished to avoid undue weight | No abuse of discretion; playback was at jurors’ request, supervised, corroborated by other exhibits, and risk of undue emphasis was not shown |
| Consecutive aggravated-robbery sentence mootness | Moot: consecutive minor sentence has no practical effect because life-without-parole sentence controls | Valdez: not moot because future legal change might reduce life term | Moot: affirming murder conviction rendering life sentence lawfully imposed makes consecutive sentencing issue practically irrelevant |
Key Cases Cited
- Maryland v. King, 569 U.S. 435 (2013) (upholding DNA swab as reasonable booking procedure for arrestees charged with serious crimes)
- DeBella v. People, 233 P.3d 664 (Colo. 2010) (trial-court abuse of discretion where jury had unsupervised access to testimonial video during deliberations)
- People v. Villalobos, 159 P.3d 624 (Colo. App. 2006) (CRE 403 and standard for admission of potentially gruesome evidence)
- People v. Dist. Court, 785 P.2d 141 (Colo. 1990) (evidence is unfairly prejudicial only when it invites decision on an improper emotional basis)
- Haskell v. Harris, 745 F.3d 1269 (9th Cir. 2014) (discussing King and DNA retention/expungement considerations)
- United States v. Mitchell, 652 F.3d 387 (3d Cir. 2011) (noting expungement procedures as factor supporting reasonableness of DNA-collection statute)