People v. Warrick
2011 Colo. App. LEXIS 1745
Colo. Ct. App.2011Background
- Warrick was convicted of possession of a weapon by a previous offender (POWPO) and harassment after a Dec 2008 incident with a long-term partner.
- Police discovered an assault rifle in a car registered to Warrick's mother; Warrick previously pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit robbery in 2004.
- At trial, Warrick moved to suppress an expert witness used to prove the POWPO prior conviction due to a Crim. P. 16 endorsement issue; the court gave options to continue or proceed without the expert.
- The prosecutor elected to proceed, and sought to admit two booking reports and a mittimus to prove Warrick's prior conviction instead of the suppressed expert testimony.
- Booking reports and mittimus were admitted via testimony from a police officer over Warrick's objections, including desribing the documents and identifying Warrick from photos.
- Warrick challenges the admissibility of the booking reports, mittimus, and officer testimony on authentication, hearsay, and confrontation grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are the booking reports and mittimus properly authenticated? | Warrick argues inadequate authentication. | Warrick contends insufficient foundation and hearsay concerns. | Yes; properly authenticated under CRE 901(b)(7) and CRE 902(4) with no abuse. |
| Are booking reports and mittimus admissible as public records under CRE 803(8) and CRE 808(8)? | Public records exception applies to these documents. | They are hearsay and improperly admitted. | Yes; admissible under CRE 803(8)(A) and (B) and CRE 808(8). |
| Did admission of the booking reports and mittimus violate Warrick's confrontation rights? | Admission of these documents implicates confrontation | Confrontation rights were violated by admitted records. | No; statements were not testimonial, so no Crawford violation. |
| Was the police officer's lay testimony about the felony class and 'F5' admissible? | Officer's testimony helps explain the prior conviction. | Testimony constitutes improper expert testimony under CRE 702. | Admissible; it was lay or non-expert testimony about statutory facts. |
| Was the identification by the officer of Warrick from booking photos error plain error requiring reversal? | Officer identification supports Warrick's identity. | Identification was improperly admitted as plain error. | No plain error; officer was in a better position to identify Warrick. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Crespi, 155 P.3d 570 (Colo.App.2006) (authenticity of items and CRE 901/902 considerations)
- People v. Quintana, 882 P.2d 1366 (Colo.1994) (public records authentication and admissibility principles)
- People v. Gonzales-Quevedo, 203 P.3d 609 (Colo.App.2008) (public records admissibility groundings under CRE 901/902)
- People v. Deskins, 904 P.2d 1358 (Colo.App.1995) (records of conviction as public records admissible evidence)
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (U.S. 2009) (public records generally not testimonial; confrontation not required)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (testimonial statements trigger confrontation rights)
- United States v. Dowdell, 595 F.3d 50 (1st Cir.2010) (public booking sheets admissible as non-adversarial records under 803(8)(B))
- United States v. Harris, 557 F.3d 938 (8th Cir.2009) (routine and unambiguous factual matters admissible under 803(8)(B))