Cardman v. People, Supreme Court Case No. 17SC541
| Citation | 445 P.3d 1071 |
| Decision Date | 01 July 2019 |
| Docket Number | Supreme Court Case No. 17SC541 |
| Parties | Ryan Matthew CARDMAN, Petitioner v. The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Respondent. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Colorado |
Attorneys for Petitioner: Megan A. Ring, Public Defender, Katherine Brien, Deputy Public Defender, Denver, Colorado
Attorneys for Respondent: Philip J. Weiser, Attorney General, Gabriel P. Olivares, Assistant Attorney, General, Denver, Colorado
En Banc
¶1 "[O]urs is an accusatorial and not an inquisitorial system—a system in which the State must establish guilt by evidence independently and freely secured and may not by coercion prove its charge against an accused out of his own mouth." Rogers v. Richmond , 365 U.S. 534, 541, 81 S.Ct. 735, 5 L.Ed.2d 760 (1961). For this reason, "convictions following the admission into evidence of confessions which are involuntary, i.e., the product of coercion, either physical or psychological, cannot stand." Id. at 540.
¶2 Yet Detective Paul Patton coerced Matthew Ryan Cardman into making a confession, and the prosecution then used that confession as evidence against Cardman to convict him of multiple sex offenses. Defense counsel filed a pretrial motion to suppress Cardman’s statements but neglected to challenge the voluntariness of those statements. Had counsel advanced a voluntariness claim, this case might not be before us today. But because counsel neglected to do so, the trial court did not rule on it, and a division of the court of appeals declined to review its merits, concluding that Cardman waived it by failing to raise it in the trial court. We disagree with the division and therefore reverse.
¶3 For the reasons articulated in Phillips v. People , 2019 CO 72, 443 P.3d 1016, a companion case we announce today, we hold that the voluntariness claim was forfeited, not waived, and is thus subject to plain error review. Upon conducting such review, we conclude that the court erred in admitting Cardman’s statements at trial and that the error rises to the level of plain error requiring reversal. Accordingly, we remand to the court of appeals with instructions to return the case to the trial court for a new trial.
¶4 A.W., a seven-year-old child, lived with her mother, A.B., and Cardman, A.B.’s boyfriend. Although A.B. and Cardman broke up, they continued to live together. Even after the breakup, A.B. routinely left A.W. in Cardman’s care while she worked night shifts as a nurse. This arrangement continued until A.B. married another man. During the ensuing years, A.W. complained about chronic nightmares, inability to sleep, and stomachaches. A.W. eventually told her stepfather that Cardman had sexually abused her on several occasions while her mother was at work. Her stepfather then informed A.B., who called the police. Cardman was later arrested.
¶5 As part of his investigation into A.W.’s allegations, Detective Patton conducted an audio-recorded interview of Cardman at the jail. Cardman initially denied the allegations. However, after the detective made certain promises, Cardman incriminated himself. Below are excerpts from the interview reflecting such promises:
At the end of the interrogation, Cardman confessed to several instances of unlawful sexual contact with A.W.
¶6 The prosecution later charged Cardman with eight offenses related to three incidents of sexual assault. Before trial, Cardman moved to suppress his confession based on his rights to counsel and to remain silent. Cardman argued that: (1) two days before the interview, he invoked his right to counsel and informed the detective that he did not wish to answer questions; (2) the detective nonetheless interviewed him at the jail after a third party allegedly indicated that Cardman had changed his mind and wanted to speak with law enforcement; and (3) he never contacted law enforcement directly or asked anyone to contact law enforcement on his behalf. Following a suppression hearing, the trial court denied Cardman’s motion. However, it did so without reviewing the audio-recorded interview because neither party requested its admission into evidence at the hearing. The case proceeded to trial, and a jury returned guilty verdicts on all the charges brought against Cardman. The trial court then imposed an indeterminate prison sentence with a minimum term of twelve years and a maximum term of the rest of Cardman’s life.
¶7 On appeal, Cardman challenged the trial court’s ruling that Detective Patton had not violated his rights to counsel and to remain silent. But he also raised a two-part voluntariness claim that he had not advanced at the trial court—he asserted that the trial court reversibly erred when it admitted his statements without first determining (1) whether they were voluntarily made and (2) whether he was entitled to specific performance of the detective’s promises.
People v. Cardman , 2016 COA 135, ¶ 71, ––– P.3d ––––, judgment vacated by Cardman v. People , 2017 WL 1369883 (Colo. Apr. 10, 2017). In a split decision, a division of the court of appeals declined to address the merits of the unpreserved voluntariness claim, concluding that Cardman had waived it by failing to raise it in the trial court. Id. at ¶¶ 60–84. In his dissent, Judge Berger reasoned that Cardman merely forfeited the claim, which rendered it reviewable for plain error. Id. at ¶¶ 123–44 (Berger, J., dissenting). We granted Cardman’s petition for certiorari, vacated the division’s opinion, and ordered a limited remand so the division could reconsider its waiver ruling in light of our recent decision in Reyna-Abarca v. People , 2017 CO 15, 390 P.3d 816.2 On remand, the same division issued another split decision. People v. Cardman , 2017 COA 87, ––– P.3d ––––. The majority stood by its previous waiver determination, id. at ¶¶ 20–24, while Judge Berger again asserted that Cardman’s unpreserved claim was forfeited, not waived, and therefore subject to plain error review, id. at ¶¶ 80 –100 (Berger, J., dissenting).
¶8 Cardman again petitioned for certiorari review, and we granted his petition.3
¶9 Cardman maintains that the division erred in concluding that he waived his unpreserved claim. The prosecution disagrees and urges us to affirm the division’s judgment. For the reasons set forth in Phillips , which relies on People v. Rediger , 2018 CO 32, 416 P.3d 893, we hold that Cardman’s voluntariness claim was forfeited, not waived, and is subject to plain error review.4 Undertaking such review, we conclude that Cardman’s statements were involuntary and that the trial court plainly erred in admitting them into evidence. Therefore, we reverse the division’s judgment and remand with instructions to return the case to the trial court for a new trial.5
¶10 A waiver requires evidence of an "intentional relinquishment of a known right or privilege." Phillips , ¶ 16 (quoting Rediger , ¶ 39, 416 P.3d at 902 ). "When an intentional relinquishment of a known right is not present, then ‘the failure to make the timely assertion of a right’...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Phillips v. People
...a statute or rule includes procedural requirements, defense counsel's failure to comply with them must be deemed a waiver. See Cardman v. People , 2019 CO 73, ¶¶ 13–16, 445 P.3d 1071. We are unpersuaded. The People's position is not supported by Rediger and would lead to absurd results.¶35 ......
-
People v. Forgette
...guidance regarding the often fuzzy line between waiver and forfeiture. See Phillips , 2019 CO 72, 443 P.3d 1016 ; Cardman v. People , 2019 CO 73, 445 P.3d 1071 ; Rediger , 2018 CO 32, 416 P.3d 893 ; People v. Smith , 2018 CO 33, 416 P.3d 886. Certainly, the bar for finding waiver is high, b......
-
People v. Oliver
...the fundamental fairness of the trial itself as to cast serious doubt on the reliability of the judgment of conviction." Cardman v. People , 2019 CO 73, ¶ 19, 445 P.3d 1071. The defendant has the burden of establishing each element. People v. Boykins , 140 P.3d 87, 95 (Colo. App. 2005). ¶ 4......
-
People v. Snider
...the fundamental fairness of the trial itself as to cast serious doubt on the reliability of the judgment of conviction." Cardman v. People , 2019 CO 73, ¶ 19, 445 P.3d 1071. The defendant has the burden of establishing each component. People v. Boykins , 140 P.3d 87, 95 (Colo. App. 2005). ¶......
-
Waiver and Plain Error Review the Case Law Framework
...(Colo. 2018). [2] People v. Smith, 416 P.3d 886 (Colo. 2018). [3] Phillips v. People, 443 P.3d 1016 (Colo. 2019). [4] Cardman v. People, 445 P.3d 1071 (Colo. 2019). [5] Crim. P. 52(b) provides: "Plain Error. Plain errors or defects affecting substantial rights may be noticed although they w......