2019 COA 124
Colo. Ct. App.2019Background
- Victim J.T. was sexually assaulted and murdered; initial suspect Robert Dewey was convicted in 1996 but later exonerated after STR DNA testing identified Douglas Thames as a match.
- New STR testing placed Thames’s DNA on the murder weapon, under the victim’s fingernails, and elsewhere; Thames was later arrested while incarcerated on unrelated charges and interrogated on video.
- Thames was tried, convicted of first‑degree murder and sexual assault, and sentenced to life without parole; the court omitted several mandatory surcharges at sentencing but imposed them post‑sentence.
- At trial the court: excluded evidence of Dewey’s prior conviction (though it admitted other evidence implicating Dewey), suppressed and then admitted (on appeal) Thames’s interrogation statements, allowed the jury to view the interrogation video showing Thames in jail clothing, and excluded certain historical lab results (the Results) absent the original analyst’s testimony.
- Thames appealed, raising claims that (1) exclusion of Dewey’s conviction and the Results violated his right to present a defense, (2) prosecutorial comments impermissibly invoked his silence, (3) showing the video of Thames in jail garb violated the presumption of innocence, (4) cumulative error, and (5) double jeopardy regarding post‑sentence surcharges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Thames) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of evidence of Dewey’s prior conviction | Excluding the conviction was appropriate under CRE 403 to avoid confusion and undue delay. | Thames argued he was entitled to present Dewey’s conviction as powerful alternative‑suspect evidence. | Court affirmed exclusion under CRE 403: probative value outweighed by risk of confusion and delay; Thames could still present other evidence implicating Dewey. |
| Prosecutor’s closing comments about interrogation | Prosecutor argued comments concerned Thames’s demeanor in the video, not silence. | Thames argued comments improperly penalized invocation of Fifth Amendment silence. | Court held comments addressed Thames’s flat affect while answering questions (permissible), not post‑arrest silence. |
| Admitting interrogation video showing Thames in jail clothing | People argued jurors can view pretrial videos and brief jail attire in a video does not undermine presumption of innocence. | Thames argued showing him in prison garb invited impermissible prejudice and undermined presumption of innocence. | Court held no violation: showing jail clothing in a pretrial interrogation video is distinguishable from requiring a defendant to appear at trial in prison clothes. |
| Exclusion of prior laboratory Results | People relied on foundation/statutory requirements for in‑person testimony of original analyst. | Thames argued exclusion deprived him of ability to present/ confront evidence (right to present a defense). | Court assumed possible error but found any error harmless given other admitted DNA evidence and defense argument about the Results. |
| Cumulative error & surcharges post‑sentence | People maintained no reversible errors; surcharges are mandatory and correct an illegal sentence. | Thames argued cumulative trial errors denied fair trial and that imposition of surcharges after sentencing violated double jeopardy and denied an opportunity to seek waiver. | Court found no cumulative prejudice; correction of omitted mandatory surcharges did not violate double jeopardy but remanded to allow Thames to seek statutory waivers based on indigency. |
Key Cases Cited
- Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319 (2006) (defendant has constitutional right to present a meaningful defense but subject to evidentiary rules)
- Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501 (1976) (forcing defendant to wear jail clothes at trial undermines presumption of innocence)
- Deck v. Missouri, 544 U.S. 622 (2005) (visible physical restraints before jury are disfavored and require specific justification)
- People v. Ortega, 198 Colo. 179, 597 P.2d 1034 (1979) (prosecutor may not comment on defendant’s silence as evidence of guilt)
- Rothgeb v. United States, 789 F.2d 647 (8th Cir. 1986) (demeanor during questioning is admissible and may be considered by the jury)
- People v. Constant, 645 P.2d 843 (Colo. 1982) (prosecutor may draw reasonable inferences from witness demeanor in assessing credibility)