Peo v. Estrada

<div><div><div><div id="pdf-container" style="width: 782px">
<div id="pf1" data-page-no="1">
<div><div>
<div>23CA0669 Peo v Estrada 09-19-2024 </div>
<div> </div>
<div>COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Court of Appeals No. 23CA0669 </div>
<div>Arapahoe County District Court No. 21CR2207 </div>
<div>Honorable Darren L. Vahle, Judge </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>The People of the State of Colorado, </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Plaintiff-Appellee </div>
<div> </div>
<div>v. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Luis Martin Estrada<span>, </span>
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Defendant-Appellant. </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>JUDGEMENT AFFIRMED<span> </span>
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Division V </div>
<div>Opinion by JUDGE GROVE </div>
<div>Freyre<span> and <span>Lum, JJ., concur</span> </span>
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e) </div>
<div>Announced September 19, 2024 </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Philip J. Weiser, Attorney General, Caitlin E. Grant, Assistant Attorney </div>
<div>General, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellee </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Greg D. Rawlings P.C., Greg D. Rawlings, Denver, Colorado, for Defendant-</div>
<div>Appellant </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf2" data-page-no="2">
<div>
<img alt="" src="https://icbg.s3.amazonaws.com/media/MM9/Zgu/MM9ZguMTW/pwsU7Hj38Z0aT83wGmUtrM/47S7PRRijEBs%3D?AWSAccessKeyId=ASIA5PHC3MTPTTRMSMGW&amp;Expires=1727949788&amp;Signature=lI0avBzGkEdJxYf2zwMClZt8bGs%3D&amp;x-amz-security-token=IQoJb3JpZ2luX2VjEHEaCXVzLWVhc3QtMSJHMEUCIQDE2JuLhv%2FSDGN9zO3aT4PiDFJ32FRQzr%2FRLUzT49bNiQIgYr%2BHMnmtwSgFdH%2FHb0Rug9e%2FQou4TwhbwRNI1LwCb8gquwUIuf%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2FARAAGgw5MjYwNDEyMDM5MzUiDLqVLoct%2FwlLmhA6siqPBfhF%2FRlt3ch10Ibr6J9fsIDXlNuu5gY3c6Gg5da7Bu5tVtRBj8TK3WkKfadBOHq1YdQirBKbNiuX8430jeVF5yy1U9YVYKIDxPMtbsvjyczso2hy1i15Lt%2B8pk6uXB9djJc3gbl2HfZNnnKDMd20kcrj2FNwckIE1BWXDbd3WMLZFoAQVVH4JtEIwTXRyuU2W6YuahssBpcbYLQSYZpHRQSEL%2FCmWM7ZknHRgoSQ%2BZ3CVEUtlTYAToMmlNUQP%2F9ie6oJnbfjFI22%2Fa3r%2FYaRQ430i4wdMXDs3Td8FFMn79HiI3Mk%2FZPyIAx55lHPR8BKMbelGJQ6Gjs2kGEqGJAmz9WLqnGD61436gKBTRVw1DzLdHbIrSo3M0LWm7xCufhHd6BoKv4QukJV6Xg%2Bjbsisuyr2ugBiDIV2UZWseTZ2B3RxfWwSxvosEt17MKV8BefjbNYpHm6igL0MfmNgnQVTIIEPiHVkdy%2BrMkEcchYUea4tUTCEh9iZvgT770n9Qr5h2t1a8XwjuHimYg6tA3kLKohrswxEAi8%2B1l5AT8cNoi75mOg7DbiP6MHAuDgDo3zo0dT1RKGlJvLmll%2Bt3kB4HK831jviIu1drxbEpwpMaLrn87w1o%2Bbz3SqUulOyvuMPh4mxTr1dc7%2BrJ46M7717oQ7KUExS1yG4lxrvQ1RowEH38wRT0pLLv3gso3zP%2FtRjyx2PRH%2BvSb1DKgUnh1v0epCHfy8nfIsjLeMvroFMTlCvb38I2o4sgNQGlU67OQ9G82h0lKsSPMNqruIgNz4BF6W8QXsdg0RqiJ%2Feet27uGg0rh9U%2BspnLyD9UHMJ675WN4cO4k2f%2By16j5FYLip8FsT5%2FS43b6%2B2zRPlEuJiJgw66L5twY6sQFDf0Mrt4%2BGUHzRZBo4PnLUUKLzYv8sJj9UBKWkhA4RwGFQQcvA4A%2FX%2By8NF%2FOFVKd3iPRG7uXchpyv1suCjmwpiVnxep%2B%2FTRpUOJ9P%2FwRIPyJy5yDRQG8iwaz7jdBKdWxVTdr%2Bk8WkKgHxH%2BbrSCb3xIr%2BmuCTG2f9ng7GYQKGHDY1QbNDEdxWNVW60cvrUBIDwPkfWaUQr6mM%2FHU%2FP7kJO%2BVBu3x0oal9scrcT8RUqc0%3D"><div>
<div>1 </div>
<div>¶ 1<span> </span><span>A jury convicted defendant, Luis Martin Estrada, of first </span>
</div>
<div>degree murder, four counts of attempted first degree murder, two </div>
<div>counts of first degree assault, and three counts of menacing.</div>
</div>
<div><div>1</div></div>
<div>
<div>  <span>He </span>
</div>
<div>appeals the judgment of conviction <span>entered on the jury’s verdicts.  </span>
</div>
<div>In particular, he contends that the trial court abused its discreti<span></span>on </div>
<div>by denying his motion to admit evidence of an alternate suspect’s </div>
<div>prior bad acts.  And he contends that this ruling <span>“hamstr[u]ng” his </span>
</div>
<div>defense by denying him the ability to present an alternate suspect </div>
<div>defense and thereby depriving him of a fair trial.<span>  </span>We reject t<span></span>hese </div>
<div>contentions and affirm. </div>
<div>I.<span> <span>Background </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 2<span> </span><span>In October 2021, a group of friends held a birthday <span></span>party in a </span>
</div>
<div>hotel suite.  Estrada came to the party with his girlfriend.  Estrada </div>
<div>and his girlfriend asked the host of the party if <span>Estrada’s</span> friend, </div>
<div>Ruben Mejia-Soto, could also come to the party.  The host said yes, </div>
<div>and Mejia-Soto arrived shortly thereafter<span>.  </span> </div>
<div>¶ 3<span> </span><span>Witnesses all recalled Mejia-Soto wearing gray clothing and </span>
</div>
<div>variously recalled Estrada wearing black clothing and yellow shoes, </div>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div><div>1</div></div>
<div>
<div> In addition, Estrada pleaded guilty to one count of posse<span></span>ssion of a </div>
<div>weapon by a previous offender.<span>  </span> </div>
</div>
<a href="#pf2" data-dest-detail='[2,"XYZ",69,104,null]'><div style="border-style:none;position:absolute;left:620.399444px;bottom:794.011111px;width:10.080000px;height:32.870000px;background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0.000001);"></div></a>
</div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf3" data-page-no="3">
<div><div>
<div>2 </div>
<div>or black and red clothing and yellow shoes<span>. </span> Surveillance footage </div>
<div>from the hotel showed Estrada wearing black clothing and yellow </div>
<div>shoes, and a detective who later contacted him in the parking l<span></span>ot of </div>
<div>the hotel likewise observed that he was wearing a black shirt,<span></span> black </div>
<div>pants, and yellow shoes<span>. </span> <span> </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 4<span> </span><span>At the party, Estrada and Mejia-<span>Soto started “acting like they </span></span>
</div>
<div>wanted a fight, like they were trying to find problems.”  They <span></span>calmed </div>
<div>down, but several guests of the party saw Estrada <span>“flash”</span> or pull </div>
<div>out <span>a </span>pistol that was tucked in his waistband<span>.  </span>One guest initially </div>
<div>saw Mejia-Soto with the gun.<span>  </span>[But the guest then saw Estrada tak<span></span>e </div>
<div>the gun from Mejia-Soto.<span>  <span> </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 5<span> </span><span>One of the guests told Estrada to stop waving the gun aroun<span></span>d </span>
</div>
<div>because <span>it</span> might have a round in the chamber and Estrada was </div>
<div>drunk.  Estrada replied, “Who doesn’t have one in the chamber?” </div>
<div>He then pulled a magazine from his pocket and inserted it int<span></span>o the </div>
<div>gun.   </div>
<div>¶ 6<span> </span><span>Both Estrada and Mejia-Soto told another person that they <span></span>did </span>
</div>
<div>not know anyone at the party and were looking <span>for</span> a fight.  At one </div>
<div>point, Estrada pointed the gun at other guests.  The host and other </div>
<div>guests told Estrada to leave.  When he and Mejia-Soto refused, the </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf4" data-page-no="4">
<div><div>
<div>3 </div>
<div>host and several guests pushed them out of the room. <span></span> The host </div>
<div>locked the door and, moments later, heard gunshots. <span></span> <span> </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 7<span> </span><span>As Estrada and Mejia-Soto were being pushed out of the party, </span>
</div>
<div>five partygoers were approaching the party from the hallway<span>.  </span>
</div>
<div>Estrada was “banging on the door.”  One of the partygoers, Eric </div>
<div>DeSantiago, told Estrada that he was “pretty sure that [t<span></span>hose still </div>
<div>inside the hotel room] could hear them.”  In response, <span>Mejia-Soto </span>
</div>
<div>advanced on and hit DeSantiago.<span>  </span>Estrada <span>“pulled out a gun,” </span>
</div>
<div>pointed it at DeSantiago, and told him to leave.<span>  </span>He then fired </div>
<div>several shots through the hotel room door.  Estrada also pointed </div>
<div>the gun at the remaining partygoers in the hallway, following some </div>
<div>of them into a stairwell, waving the gun in their faces, and saying<span></span>, </div>
<div>“Who wants it next?”  <span> </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 8<span> </span><span>Estrada and his girlfriend left the hotel and were getting into </span>
</div>
<div>their car when police officers arrested them.  Mejia-Soto got int<span></span>o a </div>
<div>separate car but was also apprehended and arrested.<span>  </span><span> </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 9<span> </span><span>Four people inside the hotel room suffered gunshot wounds.  </span>
</div>
<div>One of them died as a result of a gunshot wound to his chest<span>.  </span>
</div>
<div>Police located a gun<span>, </span>which matched a shell found in the hotel<span>, </span>
</div>
<div>under a vehicle in the hotel parking lot.  <span> </span>
</div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf5" data-page-no="5">
<div><div>
<div>4 </div>
<div>¶ 10<span> </span><span>Police performed gunshot residue tests on Estrada and Mejia-</span>
</div>
<div>Soto.  <span>Estrada’s</span> test came back positive for gunshot residue </div>
<div>particles.  But <span>“</span><span>[n]</span><span>o particles of gunshot residue were found” in<span></span> </span>
</div>
<div>Mejia-<span>Soto’s test<span>. <span> DNA analysis <span>of</span> the gun and magazine included </span></span></span>
</div>
<div>Mejia-Soto as a contributor on both; Estrada and his girlfriend we<span></span>re </div>
<div>inconclusive contributors on the gun and excluded as contributors </div>
<div>on the magazine.   </div>
<div>II.<span> <span>Alternate Suspect and Other Act Evidence </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 11<span> </span><span>Before trial, Estrada notified the trial court that he intended to </span>
</div>
<div>pursue an alternate suspect defense.  He identified Mejia-Soto as </div>
<div>the alternate suspect.  As part of his planned defense, <span></span>Estrada </div>
<div>sought to offer evidence of “Mejia<span>-</span>Soto’s pending case”<span> relating to </span>
</div>
<div>this matter, and <span>“the plea offer he accepted from the People.”  An<span></span>d </span>
</div>
<div>he sought to offer evidence that, roughly five months before the </div>
<div>events underlying this case, <span>“</span>Mejia-Soto brandished a firearm f<span></span>rom </div>
<div>his front pocket while at a house party and fired it multiple times<span>.”  </span>
</div>
<div>This latter evidence was admissible, the defense argued, to show </div>
<div>Mejia-<span>Soto’s common plan or scheme<span> of carrying guns </span>“at parties” </span>
</div>
<div>and <span>“</span>then fir[ing] them.<span>”</span><span>  </span> </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf6" data-page-no="6">
<div><div>
<div>5 </div>
<div>¶ 12<span> </span><span>The court ruled on these issues at a pretrial hearing.  As to the </span>
</div>
<div>evidence of Mejia-<span>Soto’s behavior in this case, the court </span>stated t<span></span>he </div>
<div>following: </div>
<div>[The defense] intend[s] to introduce the </div>
<div>behavior of Mr. Mejia Soto, the Codefendant, </div>
<div>his possession of the gun, his behavior during </div>
<div>the party, the fact that he had the gun at some </div>
<div>point, his DNA on the gun, and they intend to </div>
<div>bring those in to show that he is [an] alternate </div>
<div>suspect that he is the shooter. </div>
<div>The court found that this was <span>“</span>simply evidence<span>” of</span> Mejia-Soto <span>as an<span></span><span> </span></span>
</div>
<div>alternate suspect<span>, which “can be presented . . . by the [d]efense.”</span><span>  </span><span> </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 13<span> </span><span>As to the other act evidence, defense counsel made an offer of </span>
</div>
<div>proof, which includ<span>ed</span> a news article and information contained <span></span>in </div>
<div>the prosecution’s discovery indicating that an eyewitness who wa<span></span>s </div>
<div>at both parties described Mejia-<span>Soto as “the shooter” at t<span></span>he prior </span>
</div>
<div>party.  <span> </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 14<span> </span><span>The court found that this <span>was “certainly evidence of similar </span></span>
</div>
<div>conduct.<span>” </span><span> B<span>ut no proof had been offered that “there was a plan <span></span>to </span></span>
</div>
<div>do this repeatedly.”  And, the court found, even if it <span></span>determined a </div>
<div>proper purpose for admitting the evidence, it was not independent<span></span> </div>
<div>of the propensity inference that Mejia-<span>Soto was “the kind of guy </span>
</div>
<div>wh<span>o fires guns at parties” and “was acting in conformity with t<span></span>hat </span>
</div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf7" data-page-no="7">
<div><div>
<div>6 </div>
<div>character.”<span>  <span>Because there was nothing “</span><span>signatury</span></span><span>”</span><span> </span>—<span> which we </span>
</div>
<div>take to mean as distinctive enough to suggest that the same <span></span>person </div>
<div>likely committed both acts <span>—</span> about the prior act evidence and this </div>
<div>case, the court found, the relevance of the prior act “really <span></span>comes </div>
<div>from propensity.”  Thus, the court concluded, the t<span></span>est for admitting </div>
<div>evidence of the prior act was not met.  <span> </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 15<span> </span><span>During trial, Estrada asked the court to reconsider its ruling.  </span>
</div>
<div>The court again denied the request to admit this prior act eviden<span></span>ce<span>.  </span>
</div>
<div>The court cited <span>People v. Bueno</span>, 

626 P.2d 1167

 (Colo. App. 1981), </div>
<div>stating that it “laid the foundation for” when other act eviden<span></span>ce </div>
<div>could be admitted in establishing an alternate suspect defens<span></span>e.  The </div>
<div>court distinguished <span>Bueno</span><span>, finding that there, the “high similaritie<span></span>s” </span>
</div>
<div>between the prior act and the charged act made it highly likely that<span></span> </div>
<div>the perpetrator of each crime was the same person.  <span></span>Here, however, </div>
<div>the court found the evidence of the two acts was not sufficient<span></span>ly </div>
<div>similar and therefore the prior act was not relevant:<span> </span>
</div>
<div>Here, there’s a party, there’s a gun, and shots </div>
<div>are fired.  Those are the same.  But those are </div>
<div>pretty generic facts, and they are not the kind </div>
<div>of facts that are there in <span>Bueno</span>.  The Court </div>
<div>simply does not find that <span>—</span> even if the Court </div>
<div>were to allow in evidence that Mr. Mejia was at </div>
<div>a party five months earlier, that he had a gun, </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf8" data-page-no="8">
<div><div>
<div>7 </div>
<div>that he fired the gun, that that has any </div>
<div>relevance towards whether he is the shooter in </div>
<div>this case except for the propensity inference. </div>
<div>The court went on to say that the only way for the prior act <span></span>to be </div>
<div>relevant is for the jury to think, “Well, he shot a gun <span></span>at a party </div>
<div>before.  He’s probably a party<span>-shooting kind of guy, and he probably </span>
</div>
<div>did it again.  This is evidence of character and that he acted in </div>
<div>conformity with that character.<span>”</span><span>  </span>Unlike <span>Bueno <span>and “the other cases </span></span>
</div>
<div>the Court is familiar with where this comes in,” this is not a </div>
<div>“signature” or “<span>individual characteristic crime</span>.”  Thus, the court </div>
<div>found that the other act evidence was not relevant and that <span></span>any </div>
<div>relevance would be outweighed by the danger of confusion <span></span>of the </div>
<div>issues.   </div>
<div>¶ 16<span> </span><span>Estrada asserts that <span>the trial court’s </span>evidentiary ruling was </span>
</div>
<div>error.<span>  <span>We disagree. </span></span>
</div>
<div>A.<span> <span>Standard of Review and Controlling Law </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 17<span> <span>We review a trial court’s evidentiary ruling<span>s for an abuse of </span></span></span>
</div>
<div>discretion.  <span>People v. Elmarr</span>, 

2015 CO 53

, ¶ 20.  A court abus<span></span>es its </div>
<div>discretion if, among other things, its ruling is manifestly <span></span>arbitrary, </div>
<div>unreasonable, or unfair.  <span>Id.</span> </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf9" data-page-no="9">
<div><div>
<div>8 </div>
<div>¶ 18<span> </span><span>A criminal <span>defendant is constitutionally entitled “to all </span></span>
</div>
<div>reasonable opportunities to present evidence that migh<span></span>t tend to </div>
<div>create doubt” as to <span>his guilt<span>.  </span><span>Id.</span> at ¶ 26 (citing <span>Bueno</span>, 626 P.2d <span>at</span> </span>
</div>
<div>1169).  However, the right to present a defense is const<span></span>rained by </div>
<div>well-established rules governing the admissibility of evidence. <span></span> <span>Id.</span> at </div>
<div>¶ 27.<span>  </span>Alternate suspect evidence must be relevant.  <span>Id. </span> But even </div>
<div>relevant evidence may be <span>excluded “if its probative value is </span>
</div>
<div>substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, </div>
<div>confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by consi<span></span>derations </div>
<div>of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation <span></span>of </div>
<div>cumulative evidence.”  <span>Id. <span>(quoting CRE 403). </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 19<span> </span><span>When evidence <span>“</span>concerns other acts by the alternate suspect, </span>
</div>
<div>a court must look to whether all the similar acts and </div>
<div>circumstances, taken together, support a finding that t<span></span>he same </div>
<div>person probably was involved in both the other act <span></span>and the charged </div>
<div>crime.”  <span>Id.</span><span> at ¶ <span>23</span>.  CRE 404(b) principles guide this <span></span>analysis.<span>  </span><span>Id.</span><span>  </span></span>
</div>
<div>However, concerns regarding prejudice to the defend<span></span>ant that gave </div>
<div>rise to the common law rule underpinning CRE 404(b) <span></span>do not exist </div>
<div>when the defendant offers other acts evidence of an alternate </div>
<div>suspect.  <span>Id.</span> at ¶ 36.  Nonetheless, nothing in <span>Colorado’s caselaw </span>
</div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pfa" data-page-no="a">
<div><div>
<div>9 </div>
<div>“suggests that evidence of an alternate suspect’s other acts is </div>
<div>admissible purely for the inference that the alternate suspect acte<span></span>d </div>
<div>in conformity with his bad character.”  <span>Id. <span>at ¶ 39.<span>  </span>Other act </span></span>
</div>
<div>evidence that is insufficiently “distinctive or unusual” will typically </div>
<div>not support a finding that the same person probably committed </div>
<div>both acts.  <span>Id.</span><span>; </span><span>People v. Salazar</span>, 

2012 CO 20

, ¶ 26.  </div>
<div>B.<span> <span>Analysis </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 20<span> </span><span>We cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion </span>
</div>
<div>in excluding evidence of Mejia-<span>Soto’s prior act.  That is,<span></span> the court’s </span>
</div>
<div>determination that the evidence of the prior act was “<span>pretty generic</span><span>” </span>
</div>
<div>and therefore not “signature” or uniquely “characteri<span></span>stic” <span>was not </span>
</div>
<div>manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable, or unfair.  Given t<span></span>hat the prior </div>
<div>act evidence was not distinctive or unusual, the court did not <span></span>abuse </div>
<div>its discretion by determining that the only relevance of t<span></span>he prior act </div>
<div>was for the inference that the alternate suspect acted in confo<span></span>rmity </div>
<div>with his bad character, and therefore <span>in</span><span>admissible</span><span>.  </span><span>Elmarr</span><span>,</span><span> </span>¶ 39; </div>
<div>see <span>People v. Trusty<span>, 

53 P.3d 668

, <span>67</span>5 (Colo. App. 2001) (concluding </span></span>
</div>
<div>that no abuse of discretion occurred in exclusion of alternate </div>
<div>suspects’ criminal histories where the defendant “proffered no </div>
<div>evidence indicating any distinctive or unusual similarities <span></span>between </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pfb" data-page-no="b">
<div><div>
<div>10 </div>
<div>the offense with which he was charged and the prior off<span></span>enses of </div>
<div>[alternate suspects]<span>”);</span> <span>People v. Ornelas</span>, 

937 P.2d 867

, 872 (C<span></span>olo. </div>
<div>App. 1996) (same).<span>  </span>Under these circumstances, the danger of </div>
<div>confusion of the issues was high. </div>
<div>¶ 21<span> </span><span>In any event, we agree with the People that, even if we assume </span>
</div>
<div>evidentiary error, such error was harmless.  An evidentiary error </div>
<div>precluding a defendant from presenting evidence may <span></span>be of </div>
<div>constitutional magnitude “only where the defendant was deni<span></span>ed </div>
<div>virtually his [or her] only means of effectively testing significant </div>
<div>prosecution evidence.”  <span>People v. Brown<span>, 

2014 COA 155M

-2, ¶ 6, </span></span>
</div>
<div>(<span>quoting Krutsinger v. People<span>, 

219 P.3d 1054

, 1062 (Colo. 20<span></span>09)).  </span></span>
</div>
<div>Otherwise, reversal is required only if the error “substant<span></span>ially<span> </span>
</div>
<div>influenced the verdict or affected the fairness of the trial.”  <span>Id. <span> </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 22<span> </span><span>Here, the trial court did not preclude Estrada from cross-</span>
</div>
<div>examining Mejia-Soto or arguing his theory of the case<span>.  </span>Thus, he </div>
<div>was not denied his only means of testing the prosecution<span>’s</span> evidence.  </div>
<div>Further, t<span>he evidence of Estrada’s guilt was overwhelming</span><span>.</span><span>  </span><span>Tevlin v. </span>
</div>
<div>People<span>, 

715 P.2d 338

, 342 (Colo. 1986).  Four partygoers testified </span>
</div>
<div>that the man dressed in black <span>—</span> undisputedly Estrada <span>—</span> was the </div>
<div>person who shot repeatedly at the door to the hotel room and </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pfc" data-page-no="c">
<div><div>
<div>11 </div>
<div>menaced some of those who were in the hallway<span>.  </span>Further, the </div>
<div>gunshot residue test results corroborated those witness accounts </div>
<div>that Estrada was the shooter.  Under these circumstances, we </div>
<div>cannot say that the court’s decision to exclude prior act <span></span>evidence of </div>
<div>the alternate suspect substantially influenced the verdict <span></span>or fairness </div>
<div>of the trial. </div>
<div>III.<span> <span>Disposition </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 23<span> </span><span>The judgment is affirmed. </span>
</div>
<div>JUDGE FREYRE and JUDGE LUM concur. </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
</div></div></div></div>

Case Details

Case Name: Peo v. Estrada

Court Name: Colorado Court of Appeals

Date Published: Sep 19, 2024

Docket Number: 23CA0669

Court Abbreviation: Colo. Ct. App.