2018 COA 37
Colo. Ct. App.2018Background
- Timothy Wakefield shot and killed a long-time friend during an apartment altercation; Wakefield testified the shotgun discharged accidentally when he pulled it away as the victim reached for it.
- At trial Wakefield was convicted of second-degree murder (jury rejected first-degree charge).
- Immediately after the shooting Wakefield told a private security guard and later police that the shooting was in self-defense.
- The trial court refused Wakefield’s requested self-defense jury instruction, reasoning his testimony of an accidental discharge was inconsistent with an affirmative self-defense claim.
- The trial court admitted Wakefield’s custodial and pre-custodial statements and photos showing a substantial amount of marijuana in his apartment over defense objections.
- The court of appeals reversed, ordering a new trial, holding the self-defense instruction should have been given, certain statements require a voluntariness hearing on remand, and marijuana photos were unduly prejudicial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court was required to give a self-defense instruction when defendant testified the shooting was accidental but other evidence suggested self-defense | The accidental-discharge testimony negated the availability of a self-defense instruction; inconsistent theories should not be allowed | Even if defendant claims the shooting was accidental, a "scintilla" of evidence supporting self-defense requires the instruction; accident and self-defense are not mutually exclusive here | Reversed: court must give self-defense instruction when any evidence (scintilla) supports it, even if defendant also claims accident |
| Whether statements to a private security guard and to police were admissible under Miranda and due process | Statements were obtained without proper warnings and should be suppressed | Statements to the private guard are outside Miranda; many statements to police were either within Miranda public-safety exception or volunteered | Miranda exclusion was not required for the guard and many officer-elicited statements; but trial court failed to make separate voluntariness findings for police statements — remand for evidentiary hearing on voluntariness |
| Whether photos of large quantities of marijuana were admissible | Photos were relevant to credibility (robbery claim) and should be admitted | Photos were unfairly prejudicial and not part of the res gestae — should be excluded under CRE 403 | Reversed admission: photos should be excluded on retrial because prejudicial effect substantially outweighed probative value |
| Preservation/plain-error and interpreter oath (CRE 604) issues | Some issues unpreserved; interpreter oath error is plain and reversible | Defendant preserved self-defense instruction request; interpreter oath error unlikely to recur | Preservation found for self-defense instruction; CRE 604 issue not addressed because unlikely to recur; plain-error claim declined |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. People, 239 P.3d 764 (Colo. 2010) (inconsistent lesser-offense instruction may be required where defendant consistently maintains innocence)
- People v. Garcia, 826 P.2d 1259 (Colo. 1992) (a defendant’s binding judicial admission in sworn testimony can preclude an instruction based on inconsistent theory)
- People v. Idrogo, 818 P.2d 752 (Colo. 1991) (where any evidence tends to establish self-defense, court must instruct jury)
- Vigil v. People, 353 P.2d 82 (Colo. 1960) (self-defense instruction required where defendant claims accidental discharge while holding firearm in defense)
- Huffman v. People, 39 P.2d 788 (Colo. 1934) (error to refuse instructions on accident, self-defense, and mental condition if evidence supports each)
- Jabich v. People, 143 P. 1092 (Colo. 1914) (even improbable contentions of accident warrant appropriate instruction)
- People v. Pickering, 276 P.3d 553 (Colo. 2011) (self-defense can be an affirmative defense that becomes an element requiring prosecution to disprove beyond a reasonable doubt)