2018 COA 120
Colo. Ct. App.2018Background
- Police and SWAT conducted a multi-hour standoff with Richardson in his basement crawl space after officers searched the home; tear gas was deployed and officers heard a muffled gunshot; a .380 handgun and one spent casing were recovered in the crawl space.
- Richardson was charged with possession of a controlled substance, violation of bail, multiple attempted-assault counts (second and third degree), and related offenses; jury convicted on most counts and he received an effective 16-year sentence.
- During voir dire the presiding judge’s wife (Juror 25) was in the venire, empaneled on the jury, and remained seated; the judge made repeated, jocular references to his relationship with Juror 25 during trial.
- Defense counsel expressed privately that they were “afraid to challenge” the judge’s wife but did not timely object or use a peremptory to remove her; the issue was raised on appeal.
- The Court of Appeals rejected most claims (including sufficiency, Batson untimeliness, demonstrative exhibits, and expert-qualification objections) and addressed the novel question whether a judge may preside while his spouse serves on the jury.
Issues
| Issue | People’s Argument | Richardson’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for attempted 2nd/3rd degree assault | Evidence (witnesses, sounds identified as gunshots, recovered gun and casing) supported convictions | Evidence was insufficient (only one casing, speculation) | Held: Evidence sufficient; reasonable jury could find intent/attempt and deadly-weapon use. |
| Judge’s spouse serving on jury | No timely objection; if forfeited, review only for plain error; presence did not show actual bias or prejudice | Judge should have sua sponte recused or excuse spouse; appellate reversal required (structural error or at least prejudicial) | Held: Defendant forfeited timely objection; not structural error; no plain-error prejudice shown; conviction affirmed. |
| Batson claim (racial peremptory challenge) | Batson was untimely because objection came after venire dismissed | Batson challenge meritorious | Held: Batson challenge untimely and not preserved; trial court correctly denied as untimely. |
| Admission of hand-drawn demonstrative diagrams | Diagrams were fair, non-scale, admissible to aid jury; inconsistencies go to weight not admissibility | Diagrams inaccurate and misleading; cross-examination curtailed violating confrontation | Held: Exhibits admissible as fair and accurate enough; limitation on repetitive cross-examination not a constitutional violation. |
| CSI testimony without expert qualification at trial | CSI’s testimony was largely lay observation; pretrial designation as expert existed and any failure to re-designate was not plain, substantial error | Failure to qualify CSI as expert at trial was error requiring reversal | Held: Any error not shown to be obvious and substantial; testimony admissible as lay observations; no plain-error reversal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Weaver v. Massachusetts, 137 S. Ct. 1899 (2017) (framework for identifying structural error and three rationales governing presumed prejudice)
- Olano v. United States, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (distinguishing waiver and forfeiture; preserved vs. forfeited error; plain-error review)
- Sprouse v. People, 983 P.2d 771 (Colo. 1999) (standard for sufficiency of the evidence review and appellate deference to jury credibility determinations)
- United States v. Tejeda, 481 F.3d 44 (1st Cir. 2007) (juror bias and structural-error discussion; differentiating juror misconduct from judicial bias)
- Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (2009) (recusal and judicial bias doctrines informing when a judge’s impartiality is constitutionally suspect)