2018 COA 95
Colo. Ct. App.2018Background
- In 2013 Abel Lujan was charged with first-degree murder for a 1999 killing; at trial he conceded responsibility but argued for reckless manslaughter instead.
- The prosecution introduced testimony from Lujan’s ex-wife and a former girlfriend about prior abuse; contemporaneous limiting instructions were given at that testimony but the final jury instruction was only a general limiting instruction.
- During deliberations the jury asked for the limiting instruction; after debate the court chose to clear the courtroom (leaving only the jury, bailiff, reporter, and judge) and reread the contemporaneous limiting instructions aloud over defense objection.
- The jury convicted Lujan of second-degree (knowing) murder; Lujan appealed, arguing the courtroom closure violated his Sixth Amendment public-trial right and alleging several evidentiary errors.
- The court of appeals held the total, intentional, and unexplained closure violated the Sixth Amendment and constituted structural error requiring automatic reversal and remand for a new trial.
- The court also addressed three evidentiary rulings: it found exclusion of a defensive witness about Lujan’s demeanor was erroneous, upheld admission of the victim’s out-of-court statements under CRE 807, and affirmed admission of other-act domestic-violence evidence under section 18-6-801.5 and CRE 404(b).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether clearing the courtroom to reread jury instructions during deliberations violated the Sixth Amendment public-trial right | The closure was brief, transcribed, and merely repeated public instructions, so any error was trivial and not a Sixth Amendment violation | Total exclusion of public, counsel, and defendant from the proceeding violated the public-trial right and warranted reversal | Reversed: total, intentional, unexplained closure violated the Sixth Amendment; structural error requires automatic reversal |
| Whether Waller factors were satisfied to justify closure | Not argued that Waller elements were met | Court erred by failing to articulate an overriding interest, consider narrower alternatives, or make adequate findings | Waller elements not met; closure unjustified |
| Whether exclusion of rebuttal testimony about defendant appearing upset was proper (hearsay) | People argued the testimony was self‑serving hearsay and inadmissible | Lujan argued prosecution opened door to demeanor evidence; testimony was nonhearsay lay observation | Reversed exclusion: court misapplied hearsay rule; demeanor testimony admissible as nonhearsay lay observation |
| Whether victim’s prior statements and other‑act evidence were admissible | People argued statements were trustworthy under residual exception and other‑act evidence admissible under §18‑6‑801.5 and CRE 404(b) | Lujan argued residual-exception trustworthiness not shown and other-act evidence unduly prejudicial | Affirmed: victim’s statements admitted under CRE 807; other-act evidence admissible under §18‑6‑801.5 with limiting instruction |
Key Cases Cited
- Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (1984) (establishes four‑part test to justify courtroom closure)
- Peterson v. Williams, 85 F.3d 39 (2d Cir. 1996) (identifies purposes of public‑trial right used in triviality analysis)
- Presley v. Georgia, 558 U.S. 209 (2010) (reversal where court did not consider all reasonable alternatives to closure)
- Al‑Smadi, 15 F.3d 153 (10th Cir. 1994) (recognizes brief inadvertent closings may not violate Sixth Amendment)
- Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (1999) (distinguishes structural errors requiring automatic reversal)