Davis v. People

• Decision Date: 09 September 2013
• Citation: Davis v. People, 310 P.3d 58 (Colo. 2013)
• Docket Number: 10SC460
• Parties: Cameron Chad DAVIS, Petitioner, v. The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Respondent.
• Court: Colorado Supreme Court

310 P.3d 58

Cameron Chad DAVIS, Petitioner,

v.The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Respondent.

Supreme Court Case No. 10SC460

Supreme Court of Colorado.

September 9, 2013

Certiorari of the Colorado Court of Appeals, Court of AppealsCase No. 07CA1320.

Attorneys for Petitioner: Neff Services, Inc., Lauretta A. Martin Neff, Bayfield, Colorado.

Attorneys for Respondent: John W. Suthers, Attorney General, John T. Lee, Assistant Attorney General, Jennifer A. Berman, Assistant Attorney General, Denver, Colorado.

En Banc

JUSTICE BOATRIGHTdelivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶ 1 In this appeal, we consider whether law enforcement officials may testify about their perception of a witness's credibility during an investigative interview.We hold that such testimony is admissible when it is offered to provide context for the detectives' interrogation tactics and investigative decisions.The record in this case indicates that the testimony at issue was offered for that purpose, and we therefore conclude, as the court of appeals did, that the testimony at issue was properly admitted.

¶ 2 In its opinion, the court of appeals also held that opening statements can open the door to the admission of otherwise inadmissible or irrelevant evidence.We conclude that the trial court properly admitted the detectives' testimony because it was offered to provide context for the detectives' interrogation tactics and investigative decisions.Because the trial court's admissibility ruling is not only correct but also dispositive of all the testimony at issue in this case, it is unnecessary for us to reach the question of whether opening statements can open the door to otherwise inadmissible or irrelevant evidence.

¶ 3 Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals on the grounds that the testimony was properly admitted to provide context for the detectives' investigations.

I.Facts and Proceedings Below

¶ 4Cameron Davis, the petitioner, drove his girlfriend's car while a man in the passenger seat (“Smoke”) shot and killed a bystander.At trial, Davis testified to this but argued that he did not know in advance that Smoke was going to shoot anyone.The prosecution, on the other hand, argued that Davis and Smoke planned the drive-by shooting earlier that day.The prosecution heavily relied on the testimony of three witnesses: Davis's girlfriend, Davis's mother, and one of Davis's friends.The focus of this appeal, however, is the testimony of, and concerning, two detectives who testified about their investigative interviews with these witnesses.¹

¶ 5 On direct examination of one of the detectives, the prosecutor inquired about the investigative interview of Davis's girlfriend, E.W.The detective testified that the interview began conversationally, but she explained that the tone shifted and grew more confrontational as the interview progressed.The prosecutor inquired about this change:

Q: Now in the early part of that interview when it was less confrontational .... was [she] giving you information about the shooting?

A: Not really, no.

Q: All right, and is that one of the reasons why the interview got confrontational?

A: It did.

Q: Can you explain to the jury why it happened that way?

A: Well, I know I didn't believe and I guess I can—

At that point, defense counsel objected and argued that a witness cannot comment on the credibility of another witness.The trial court overruled the objection, finding that the detective used her assessment of E.W.'s credibility to determine how to proceed in the interview: “with the understanding that that's the context in which this officer is making that particular statement and not a general comment on the credibility of the witness ... I'm going to overrule the objection.”The trial court also instructed the jury, “[i]t is for [you] to determine whether or not the testimony [the witness] presents during the course of this trial is credible.”

¶ 6 The detective went on to explain why the tone escalated: “At the beginning of the interview I didn't feel that [E.W.] was telling us everything that she knew, things just didn't make sense.So as the interview proceeded, we did get more confrontational with her.”She then explained that law enforcement officials, as an interrogation tactic, often accuse an interviewee of involvement in the crime.The detective testified that after she used this technique with E.W., who the detective initially believed “was not being forthcoming with what she knew,” E.W. provided information linking Davis to the shooting:

Q: Is that one of the techniques you used with [E.W.] as well?

A: It is.

Q: To be candid, in your opinion at the time was it your assessment that she did perhaps have some level of involvement?

A: Yes.

Q: All right, and so after—did you let it be known to [E.W.] that you asked whether she was telling the truth?

A: Yes.

Q: And did you let [E.W.] know that you still suspected her of having greater involvement in the crime than she was admitting to?

A: Yes.

Q: All right, and is that sort of at the point where the interview got more confrontational?

A: Yes.

Q: And after the interview got more confrontational, did the information that [E.W.] gave you change?

A: Yes.

Q: And did she give you some information that you were able to subsequently use in the investigation of this case?

A: Yes, she did.

¶ 7The prosecution also called Davis's mother, Ms. Monroe, as a witness.She testified that she could not remember her interview with one of the detectives.On the stand, she responded to nearly all of the prosecutor's questions with the statement, “I don't know.”Because of this testimony, the prosecutor showed the jury several video clips of the detective's interview with Ms. Monroe.²During her examination, the prosecution introduced a segment that contained an exchange in which the detective became confrontational with Ms. Monroe:

Q: The conversation we had earlier, we're going to revise that a little bit, okay, we're going to start over, okay.This time we're going to deal with the truth, fair enough?

A: The truth?

Q: Yeah....Now I want you to realize something here.Fun and games are over.

A: I don't know what you are talking about.

Q: Yeah, you do.

Defense counsel objected and argued that the detective's statements were inadmissible under CRE 608 because they constituted a comment on witness veracity.The trial court overruled the objection, and the prosecutor showed the remainder of the video to the jury.After the video, Ms. Monroe continued to respond to the prosecutor's questions in the same manner as before, answering,“I don't know,” or “I don't remember.”Because of this, the prosecution called the interviewing detective as a witness to impeach Ms. Monroe's testimony.

¶ 8 The detective took the stand and testified that “[p]ortions of [Ms. Monroe's] responses were considerably different in the second portion of the interview.”He explained that he became confrontational with Ms. Monroe “because she obviously hadn't been entirely truthful ... previously.”Twice during this line of questioning, defense counsel again objected under CRE 608.The trial court overruled both objections and stated, “[T]he ruling I previously made on this particular issue will stand here, as well.”

¶ 9 Later in the trial, the prosecutor recalled one of the detectives to discuss her interview of Davis's friend, W.C.³The detective testified that she spoke with only one other person to corroborate W.C.' s statements after the interview.She explained that she did this because “[she] was comfortable with the detail [W.C.] provided.”Again, defense counsel objected that the detective's statement constituted a credibility opinion in violation of CRE 608, and the trial court responded, “Objection's overruled, based upon my prior ruling on these issues.”The detective continued, “Like I said, [W.C.] stated details that were true as to what we had already investigated and found out.So I was comfortable with what he had told me.”

¶ 10 After a week-long trial with testimony from over twenty witnesses, the jury convicted Davis of the lesser-included offense of reckless manslaughter as well as accessory to a crime and reckless endangerment.Davis appealed.

¶ 11The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's admissibility rulings.The trial court reasoned that the detectives' testimony regarding the investigative interviews was admissible because it was not offered as a credibility opinion but instead was offered to explain the detectives' interrogation tactics and investigative decisions.People v. Davis,312 P.3d 193, 194–95, No. 07CA1320, slip op. at 1–3, 2010 WL 2105878(Colo.App.May 27, 2010)(selected for official publication).The court of appeals agreed and determined that “evidence referencing [witness] credibility only to describe a device to interrogate a suspect and to explain the context in which a suspect's statements are made is admissible.”Id. at 195, slip op. at 2(citingPeople v. Lopez,129 P.3d 1061, 1066(Colo.App.2005)).The court of appeals further concluded, as a matter of first impression, that the detectives' testimony regarding the investigative interviews was admissible because defense counsel's opening statement had opened the door to otherwise inadmissible or irrelevant evidence.Id. at 195, slip op. at 3, 4.

¶ 12 Although we granted certiorari to examine two questions, our decision on the first question of whether a detective, when testifying about interrogating a witness, may comment on his or her assessment of the witness's credibility or truthfulness, renders the second—whether a party may open the door to the admission of otherwise inadmissible evidence through its opening statement—moot.⁴Because we conclude that the detectives' testimony in this case was properly admitted to provide context for the detectives' interrogation tactics and investigative decisions, it is unnecessary for us to reach the question of whether opening...