Rael v. People
2017 CO 67
| Colo. | 2017Background
- Victim beaten to death in her apartment; Ignacio Ray Rael (defendant) was charged with first‑degree murder based on witness statements and physical evidence.
- Prosecution introduced two video exhibits at trial: a silent first‑person crime scene walkthrough video and a recorded police interview of Rael (redacted at trial).
- During deliberations jurors requested to view both videos; Rael objected, arguing jurors should not have unlimited, unsupervised access.
- Trial court provided a computer and DVDs; jurors had full control of the crime scene video; the clerk was asked to skip a redacted portion of the interview video.
- Jury convicted Rael of second‑degree murder; Rael appealed claiming abuse of discretion in allowing unfettered juror access to both videos.
- Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed; Colorado Supreme Court granted certiorari, disagreed with applying DeBella’s framework wholesale but affirmed the result: no abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by giving jurors unfettered, unsupervised access to the crime scene video during deliberations | Rael: jurors could unduly emphasize or repeat portions; court should assess whether access aids deliberations or causes unfair prejudice (per DeBella) | People: crime scene video is non‑testimonial tangible evidence and may be treated like photos; jurors may have access | Held: No abuse of discretion — non‑testimonial crime scene video does not present the undue‑emphasis risk that testimonial videotaped statements do; juror access permissible |
| Whether trial court erred by giving jurors unfettered, unsupervised access to the recorded police interview of the defendant during deliberations | Rael: access could cause jurors to focus on/confound the interview; DeBella requires balancing before unrestricted access | People: defendant’s own out‑of‑court statements historically treated differently and may be taken into deliberations; no special protections required | Held: No abuse of discretion — longstanding rule allows jury access to a defendant’s admissible confession; trial court properly exercised discretion here |
| Standard and preservation for appellate review of exhibit access | Rael: preserved objection when he warned court about unlimited access | People: argued insufficient preservation, so only plain‑error review | Held: Objection adequate; issue preserved for review under abuse‑of‑discretion standard |
| Whether DeBella’s framework controls access to these exhibits | Rael: DeBella should apply because it addresses videotaped statements and jury access | People: DeBella addresses testimonial out‑of‑court statements of witnesses (e.g., child victims), not non‑testimonial exhibits or defendant confessions | Held: DeBella framework does not control non‑testimonial crime scene videos or defendant confessions; different analysis required, though trial court retains discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- DeBella v. People, 233 P.3d 664 (Colo. 2010) (addressing jury access to videotaped out‑of‑court statements and risk of undue emphasis)
- Frasco v. People, 165 P.3d 701 (Colo. 2007) (trial courts retain discretionary control over jury access to exhibits in criminal cases)
- McKinney v. People, 80 P.3d 823 (Colo. App. 2003) (treating admitted exhibits as generally available to jurors under changed civil rule context)
- Montoya v. People, 773 P.2d 623 (Colo. App. 1989) (analogizing to C.R.C.P. 47(m) and cautioning against unsupervised juror review of videotaped witness statements)
- Jefferson, 393 P.3d 493 (Colo. 2017) (emphasizing trial court discretion over exhibits and reiterating undue‑emphasis concerns for testimonial evidence)
- Gingles, 350 P.3d 968 (Colo. App. 2014) (explaining historical rule permitting jury access to defendant’s own statements)
- Ferrero v. People, 874 P.2d 468 (Colo. App. 1993) (allowing jury to take a videotaped confession into deliberations)
- Miller v. People, 829 P.2d 443 (Colo. App. 1991) (allowing jury access to transcript of defendant’s voluntary confession)
- Aponte v. People, 867 P.2d 183 (Colo. App. 1993) (upholding juror access to videotape of the act of the crime as non‑testimonial)
- Burkhart v. Commonwealth, 125 S.W.3d 848 (Ky. 2003) (distinguishing undue‑emphasis risk between testimonial and non‑testimonial exhibits)
- Chambers v. State, 726 P.2d 1269 (Wyo. 1986) (permitting juror review of non‑testimonial recordings and tangible exhibits)
- United States v. Binder, 769 F.2d 595 (9th Cir. 1985) (observing videotaped testimony can be the functional equivalent of a live witness and thus raise unique concerns)