People v. Weeks
2015 WL 3776917
Colo. Ct. App.2015Background
- Defendant Mark Weeks was convicted by jury of first-degree murder (death of a child under 12 by one in position of trust) and child abuse resulting in death after his 3-year-old daughter A.M. suffered fatal head trauma; he was sentenced to life without parole.
- Facts in dispute: defendant left A.M. in a timeout, returned after buying cigarettes; varying accounts from stepmother G.W. included that Weeks grabbed/shook A.M. and slammed her head into a plywood wall; A.M. later suffered skull fracture, subdural hematoma, retinal hemorrhaging, widespread bruising, bruised lungs, and a healing rib fracture.
- Prosecution presented medical experts who testified injuries were nonaccidental and required high-force trauma inconsistent with an accidental fall; G.W. testified and received plea/immunity deals for cooperation; defendant did not testify.
- The prosecution introduced CRE 404(b) other-act evidence: prior violent reactions by defendant to two other children (N.B., K.B.) and to family pets (cats, a puppy) for relevance to intent/absence of accident under the doctrine of chances; court gave limiting instructions on purpose of that evidence.
- Defendant raised multiple challenges on appeal: admission of other-act evidence, constructive amendment via the child-abuse jury instruction, sufficiency of evidence for the child-abuse pattern-of-conduct theory, admissibility of expert testimony, and denial of midtrial substitution of counsel.
Issues
| Issue | People’s Argument | Weeks’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of other-act evidence (K.B., cats, puppy, N.B.) | Other acts show absence of accident/actu s reus under doctrine of chances and are admissible for intent/knowledge/mistake rebuttal | Other-act evidence improperly used to show propensity; unfairly prejudicial | Evidence regarding K.B., cats, puppy admissible to rebut accident theory; N.B. evidence close but any error harmless given strong case against Weeks |
| Constructive amendment via child-abuse instruction | Instruction reflected statutory language and evidence; no prejudice because no evidence supported the uncharged bases | Instruction added uncharged bases (malnourishment, lack of medical care), constructively amending the indictment | Inclusion of malnourishment/lack-of-care was a constructive amendment but not plain error; no reversal because no prejudice and defendant didn’t object at trial |
| Sufficiency of evidence for child-abuse pattern (whether pattern must itself cause death) | Statute allows proving an enumerated pattern (cruel punishment/mistreatment) and separately proving a discrete act within that pattern caused death; legislative history supports that only accumulation-of-injuries variant requires death | Defendant argued statute requires the pattern itself to have caused death (cumulative effect) | Held the last phrase applying to "ultimately results in death" modifies only the accumulation-of-injuries variant; evidence was sufficient that Weeks engaged in mistreatment/cruel punishment and a discrete act caused A.M.’s death |
| Expert testimony (diagnosis of nonaccidental trauma and high-force comparisons) | Experts may opine on medical diagnosis (nonaccidental trauma) and compare forces to accidents to rebut accident story; jury instructed to accept/reject opinions | Expert testimony usurped jury factfinding and irrelevant accident comparisons were unhelpful | No plain error: experts did not opine on legal guilt, testimony was probative and helpful to rebut defendant’s accidental-fall claim |
| Denial of midtrial substitution of counsel | Court properly applied Bergerud factors; delay and defendant-caused conflict justified denial; defendant still could testify and call witnesses | Denial deprived Weeks of conflict-free counsel and the ability to present his defense/testify | No abuse of discretion; no actual conflict shown and Bergerud factors supported denial |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Spoto, 795 P.2d 1314 (Colo. 1990) (doctrine of chances and admitting similar acts to rebut accident theory)
- People v. Fry, 74 P.3d 860 (Colo.App. 2002) (other-act evidence admissible to rebut accident defense)
- People v. Christian, 632 P.2d 1031 (Colo. 1981) (similar acts evidence in child-abuse contexts admissible to show injuries were not accidental)
- People v. Rath, 44 P.3d 1033 (Colo. 2002) (CRE 404(b) framework and admissibility principles)
- People v. Rector, 248 P.3d 1196 (Colo. 2011) (expert testimony limitations: may diagnose medical child abuse but not usurp jury on legal issues)
- People v. Barela, 689 P.2d 689 (Colo.App. 1984) (distinction between pattern-for-malnourishment/etc. and accumulation-of-injuries leading to death; relied on in legislative history)