2019 COA 160
Colo. Ct. App.2019Background
- Defendant Charles Jenson Shanks was convicted of kidnapping, burglary, robbery, felony menacing, assault, and false imprisonment arising from a home invasion; sentenced to 28 years.
- Victim identified Shanks from a six-photo array (placed center bottom) and again at trial; defense contested both identifications.
- Prosecution introduced historical cell-site analysis from carrier call records and tower/sector data to show Shanks’s phone connected to towers/sectors near the victim’s home around the time of the offense. Kathleen Battan and FBI Special Agent Scott Eicher testified for the prosecution; Joseph Kennedy testified for the defense. Experts limited their opinions to general geographic location, not precise coordinates.
- Shanks repeatedly requested a Shreck hearing to test the reliability of the cell-site methodology (contending reliance on ‘‘granulization’’ and the assumption phones connect to the closest tower); the trial court denied the hearing and admitted the experts under CRE 702/403.
- The court excluded certain alternate-suspect evidence identifying Andrew Davis as the second assailant but allowed impeachment and argument on the subject; the court also permitted witnesses to use Shanks’s nickname "Capone." Shanks appealed asserting the foregoing errors and cumulative error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of historical cell-site expert testimony / need for Shreck hearing | Prosecution: historical cell-site analysis to show general geographic location is a reliable, widely accepted methodology and admissible without a pretrial Shreck hearing. | Shanks: testimony relied on unreliable "granulization" theory and the faulty assumption that phones always connect to the nearest tower; thus a Shreck hearing was required. | Court: No Shreck hearing required; historical cell-site analysis to show general location is widely accepted and admissible under CRE 702; concerns go to weight not admissibility. |
| Pretrial photo-array and in-court identification | Prosecution: photo array and in-court ID were not impermissibly suggestive; identification admissible. | Shanks: photo array was suggestive (placement, distinguishing features), making out-of-court and in-court IDs unreliable. | Court: Array not impermissibly suggestive; in-court ID therefore admissible. |
| Exclusion of alternate-suspect evidence (Andrew Davis) | Prosecution: Davis connection speculative and lacked nexus to crime; exclusion appropriate under CRE 401/403. | Shanks: exclusion violated rights to present a defense; Davis had motive/opportunity and resemblance. | Court: District court did not abuse discretion—evidence was speculative and lacked a non-speculative nexus; any error harmless because defense could impeach witnesses and argue mistaken identity. |
| Use of nickname "Capone" at trial | Prosecution: use of nickname permitted for identification; not gang-related. | Shanks: nickname prejudicially suggested gang affiliation and unfairly prejudiced jury. | Court: Admission not an abuse of discretion—no gang evidence, nickname used for identification and witness recognition. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Shreck, 22 P.3d 68 (Colo. 2001) (CRE 702 admissibility framework and Shreck hearing guidance)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (U.S. 1993) (factors guiding admissibility of scientific expert testimony)
- People v. Rector, 248 P.3d 1196 (Colo. 2011) (trial-court discretion on expert admissibility and avoiding unnecessary reliability hearings)
- United States v. Hill, 818 F.3d 289 (7th Cir. 2016) (historical cell-site analysis is generally admissible to show general location)
- United States v. Evans, 892 F. Supp. 2d 949 (N.D. Ill. 2012) (criticizing ‘‘granulization’’ theory to pinpoint precise location)
- Bernal v. People, 44 P.3d 184 (Colo. 2002) (two-step test for admissibility of photographic identifications)