v. People, 2019 CO 105

Background

Nathan Vigil was tried for burglary and aggravated motor vehicle theft after a truck, motorcycle, and other property disappeared from a Conejos County farm; he was convicted of second-degree burglary and second-degree aggravated motor vehicle theft.
Investigating officer photographed shoeprints at the scene and later examined Vigil’s shoes, testifying at trial that the shoes “visually matched” the prints based on size and an identical “Skechers” emblem.
During voir dire, Juror C.A. disclosed a longstanding relationship with the victim’s family and equivocated about his ability to be impartial; the trial court denied Vigil’s for-cause challenge and C.A. served (as foreperson).
Prospective Juror D.K. expressed skepticism about local law enforcement but also assurances he would follow the law and evidence; the trial court granted the prosecution’s for-cause challenge to D.K.
Both sides exhausted peremptory challenges; at trial the defense objected to the officer’s shoeprint testimony as expert testimony but the court admitted it as lay opinion; the Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed, and the Colorado Supreme Court granted certiorari and affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Vigil's Argument	People’s Argument	Held
Trial court denied defense for-cause challenge to Juror C.A.	C.A. equivocated and had a close relationship with victim’s family, creating bias; challenge should've been sustained.	Trial judge probed and received assurance that C.A. could evaluate the victim’s testimony like other witnesses; denial was within discretion.	No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed.
Trial court granted prosecution’s for-cause challenge to Juror D.K.	Granting the prosecution’s challenge was erroneous and prejudicial—deprived Vigil of ability to shape jury via peremptories.	Even if erroneous, no prejudice: D.K. did not sit and parties have no constitutional right to shape the jury via peremptories.	Even if erroneous, harmless/no constitutional violation; affirmed.
Admissibility of officer’s shoeprint comparison testimony	Officer improperly offered expert opinion without qualification; testimony should've been excluded or required expert foundation.	Shoe/print comparison (size and emblem) is within ordinary lay knowledge; admissible under CRE 701 as lay opinion.	Trial court did not abuse its discretion; testimony admissible as lay opinion.
Remedy/prejudice standard when for-cause rulings are erroneous (role of peremptories)	Erroneous denial/grant of for-cause challenges can require reversal because peremptory deprivation impairs defendant’s jury-shaping rights.	Peremptory challenges are statutory, not constitutional; using allotted peremptories cures many for-cause errors and erroneous rulings are harmless absent bad faith or a biased juror sitting.	Court rejects a constitutional right to “shape” jury via peremptories; follows Novotny/Martinez-Salazar/Rivera — errors cured or harmless when no biased juror serves.

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Martinez-Salazar, 528 U.S. 304 (2000) (peremptory challenges provide what rule allows; no freestanding constitutional entitlement beyond that)
Rivera v. Illinois, 556 U.S. 148 (2009) (no freestanding federal constitutional right to peremptory challenges)
People v. Novotny, 320 P.3d 1194 (Colo. 2014) (overruled automatic reversal rule for erroneous for-cause rulings; left remedy issues for case-specific analysis)
Venalonzo v. People, 388 P.3d 868 (Colo. 2017) (distinguishes lay from expert opinion under CRE 701/702)
People v. Carrillo, 974 P.2d 478 (Colo. 1999) (trial court’s demeanor-based juror credibility determinations reviewed for abuse of discretion)
People v. Macrander, 828 P.2d 234 (Colo. 1992) (earlier automatic-reversal precedent later limited/overruled)
People v. Lefebre, 5 P.3d 295 (Colo. 2000) (discussed function of peremptory challenges in shaping jury; later reconsidered)
Hagos v. People, 288 P.3d 116 (Colo. 2012) (harmless-error standards for constitutional and nonconstitutional trial errors)
People v. Young, 16 P.3d 821 (Colo. 2001) (review entire voir dire; apply abuse-of-discretion standard to for-cause rulings)
People v. Gurule, 628 P.2d 99 (Colo. 1981) (reversible error when a juror had a firm opinion and was not rehabilitated)