People v. Van Meter
2018 COA 13
Colo. Ct. App.2018Background
- Defendant Wayne J. Van Meter, a convicted felon released on parole, was arrested in June 2014 after parole officers located a loaded semi-automatic handgun in a toolbox in the trunk of his car; he was charged with possession of a weapon by a previous offender (POWPO) and convicted by a jury.
- During voir dire a prospective juror said he was a deputy sheriff who had transported Van Meter to court; that juror and one other who could not be impartial were dismissed for cause. Defense asked for a new panel; the court denied the request.
- The prosecutor used a partially completed puzzle picture of an iconic space shuttle during voir dire and again in closing to illustrate reasonable doubt (roughly two-thirds of the pieces shown); defense made no contemporaneous objection.
- The court instructed jurors repeatedly on the statutory and pattern-law definitions of reasonable doubt and, over no objection, used a revised jury instruction defining "possession" to require awareness of physical possession or control for a sufficient period to terminate it.
- Trial testimony included parole officers recounting employer Gilliland’s statements that Van Meter had a gun and was possibly using drugs, and testimony that the gun was stolen; defense cross-examined and elicited evidence attacking Gilliland’s credibility and highlighting lack of drug evidence on Van Meter.
- On appeal Van Meter argued the court erred in denying a mistrial for the voir dire comment, in permitting the prosecutor’s puzzle analogy (prosecutorial misconduct), in giving the possession instruction, and in admitting evidence about alleged drug use and that the gun was stolen. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Van Meter) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Denial of mistrial after prospective juror said he transported defendant | The brief voir dire remark was not prejudicial, the juror was dismissed, and jurors who served affirmed impartiality. | The remark implied defendant was in custody on the charged matter and tainted the entire panel; mistrial or new panel required. | Denial was not an abuse of discretion; no reasonable possibility the fleeting comment influenced verdict. |
| 2. Prosecutor’s use of a partially completed iconic puzzle to explain reasonable doubt | The analogy was permissible rhetorical device; any impropriety was harmless given instructions and strong evidence. | The display of an iconic, easily recognized image and labeling it "beyond a reasonable doubt" quantified and trivialized the burden and improperly invited juror inference of guilt. | Use of the puzzle was prosecutorial misconduct but, absent contemporaneous objection, did not constitute plain error and did not undermine trial fairness. |
| 3. Jury instruction defining "possession" as awareness of physical possession or control | The instruction correctly followed the generally accepted/pattern definition and was proper in POWPO context. | The revised definition could improperly alter the required mental element and was erroneous. | Instruction was proper; defense declined to object multiple times and the instruction accurately stated governing law. |
| 4. Admission of evidence that gun was stolen and that defendant allegedly used drugs | Testimony about employer reports and stolen status was relevant to investigative steps and credibility; defense opened the door. | Such evidence was improper other-acts/hearsay and unduly prejudicial under CRE 402, 403, 404(b), and 802. | Any error was not plain: defense strategically elicited or failed to object; evidence was relevant to credibility and investigation; overwhelming evidence of guilt. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Muckle, 107 P.3d 380 (Colo. 2005) (trial court’s factual findings reviewed for any supporting evidence; discretion in mistrial rulings)
- People v. Tillery, 231 P.3d 36 (Colo. App. 2009) (mistrial is drastic remedy; consider nature of statement, weight of admissible evidence, and efficacy of cautionary instruction)
- People v. McKeel, 246 P.3d 638 (Colo. 2010) (presumption jurors follow jury instructions)
- People v. Garcia, 28 P.3d 340 (Colo. 2001) (plain error review for unobjected jury instructions; defendant must show reasonable possibility instruction contributed to conviction)
- People v. Miller, 113 P.3d 743 (Colo. 2005) (erroneous jury instruction not plain error where issue not contested or where evidence of guilt is overwhelming)
- People v. Munsey, 232 P.3d 113 (Colo. App. 2009) (isolated improper prosecutorial comment in closing unlikely to substantially influence verdict)
- People v. Centeno, 338 P.3d 938 (Cal. 2014) (puzzle analogy misleading when depicting a familiar object unrelated to evidence)
- People v. Katzenberger, 101 Cal. Rptr. 3d 122 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (displaying a partial iconic puzzle and equating it with "beyond a reasonable doubt" improperly quantified the burden)