People v. Welborne
2017 COA 105
| Colo. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Defendant Christopher Welborne and co-defendant (his mother) were tried for intentionally setting fire to their rented house and submitting false insurance claims after the fire; jury convicted Welborne of first-degree arson, criminal mischief, theft, and attempted theft.
- Evidence showed purchase of large renters policy, prior suspicious insurance claims to the same company, internet searches about starting fires, multiple ignition sources at the scene, statements by co-defendant wishing the house would burn, and a massively inflated post-fire inventory submitted to the insurer.
- Defense witness J.K. testified to incriminating statements by Welborne; defendant later testified and admitted some prior misconduct; defendant sought to call an undisclosed witness (G.S.) to impeach J.K., but the court excluded her testimony for untimeliness and hearsay/foundation concerns.
- Prosecution introduced evidence of earlier fraudulently successful insurance claims by Welborne and his mother under CRE 404(b) as proof of motive, intent, plan, and lack of accident; trial court gave limiting instructions.
- On appeal Welborne argued (1) error admitting prior-claims evidence, (2) improper impeachment with a California theft conviction, (3) erroneous exclusion of proposed impeachment witness, and (4) that criminal mischief should merge into first-degree arson. Court affirmed on all grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of prior insurance claims (CRE 404(b)) | Prior claims show motive, intent, plan, and rebut accident; probative for theft/arson charges | Prior claims irrelevant to arson; only show bad character/propensity | Admitted: prior claims were materially and logically relevant to theft/intent and not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice (Spoto factors applied) |
| Impeachment with California theft conviction (CRE 608(b)) | Cross-examining as to dishonesty was proper; underlying facts admissible | Conviction had been reduced to misdemeanor; shouldn't be used to impeach felony conviction | Permitted limited impeachment for credibility; eliciting the fact of conviction was erroneous but harmless given limited inquiry and overwhelming evidence |
| Exclusion of undisclosed impeachment witness (G.S.) | (People) Exclusion appropriate for untimely disclosure and hearsay/foundation issues | (Welborne) Exclusion violated right to present defense; G.S. would impeach J.K. | Exclusion upheld: defendant failed to make adequate offer of proof; no substantial right affected and any error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Merger of criminal mischief into first-degree arson (double jeopardy) | (Welborne) Criminal mischief is necessarily included in arson and convictions must merge | (People) Elements differ; criminal mischief requires a "single criminal episode" element absent from arson | No merger: apply strict statutory-elements test — criminal mischief contains an element (single criminal episode) not required by arson, so it is not a lesser included offense |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Rivera, 525 P.2d 431 (Colo. 1974) (establishes the statutory-elements "strict elements" test for lesser-included-offense analysis)
- People v. Segovia, 196 P.3d 1126 (Colo. 2008) (discusses admissibility of specific-conduct impeachment under CRE 608(b))
- People v. Rath, 44 P.3d 1033 (Colo. 2002) (framework and deference for admitting other-act evidence under CRE 404(b) and CRE 403)
- Yusem v. People, 210 P.3d 458 (Colo. 2009) (mental-state proof and relevance of other-act evidence to intent/mistake issues)
- People v. Thoro Products Co., 45 P.3d 737 (Colo. App. 2001) (construing "single criminal episode" language as an element of criminal mischief)
- Meads v. People, 78 P.3d 290 (Colo. 2003) (illustrates prior test for lesser-included offenses later reconsidered by the supreme court)
- Abeyta v. People, 541 P.2d 333 (Colo. App. 1975) (division opinion holding criminal mischief was a lesser included offense of arson — court here rejects as wrongly decided)