People v. Archuleta

• Decision Date: 22 June 2020
• Docket Number: Supreme Court Case No. 19SC453
• Citation: 467 P.3d 307
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Petitioner v. Sandra ARCHULETA, Respondent.
• Court: Colorado Supreme Court

467 P.3d 307

The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Petitioner

v.Sandra ARCHULETA, Respondent.

Supreme Court Case No. 19SC453

Supreme Court of Colorado.

June 22, 2020

As Modified on Denial of Rehearing July 27, 2020

Attorneys for Petitioner: Philip J. Weiser, Attorney General Jennifer L. Carty, Assistant Attorney General Denver, Colorado

Attorneys for Respondent: Megan A. Ring, Colorado State Public Defender Joseph Paul Hough, Deputy State Public Defender Denver, Colorado

En Banc

JUSTICE GABRIEL delivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶1 This case, along with People v. Wester-Gravelle , 2020 CO 64, 465 P.3d 570, which we are also deciding today, requires us to consider when a trial court must give the jury a so-called "modified unanimity instruction." Specifically, in this tragic case involving a charge of child abuse resulting in death, we must determine whether the defendant, Sandra Archuleta, was entitled to a modified unanimity instruction requiring that the jurors either unanimously agree that she committed the same act or acts underlying the child abuse charge or that she committed all of those acts.¹ Because the prosecution charged and tried this case on the theory that Archuleta had committed the offense at issue by engaging in a single criminal transaction resulting in the child's death, and because (in light of the prosecution's theory) we see no reasonable likelihood that the jurors disagreed on which specific act caused the child's death, we conclude that Archuleta was not entitled to a modified unanimity instruction here.

¶2 Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the division below, and we remand this case to the court of appeals for consideration of Archuleta's remaining contentions on appeal.

I. Facts and Procedural History

¶3 Archuleta took care of her four-month-old grandson, D.A., for one week. Several hours after D.A.’s mother picked him up, she returned to Archuleta's home with D.A. Archuleta noticed that D.A. did not appear to be breathing, so she attempted CPR and called 911. First responders arrived shortly thereafter and transported D.A. to the hospital, but he died the following morning. An autopsy revealed that D.A. had been suffering from dehydration and a bacterial infection that had started as pneumonia and that had spread to his blood.

¶4 The prosecution subsequently charged Archuleta with one count of "child abuse resulting in death," alleging that she caused D.A.’s death over the course of the week in which she took care of him. Specifically, the Complaint and Information alleged:

Between and including July 27, 2015 and August 2, 2015, Sandy Archuleta unlawfully, feloniously, knowingly, or recklessly caused an injury to, or permitted to be unreasonably placed in a situation that posed a threat of injury to, the life or health of a child, namely: [D.A.], or engaged in a continued pattern of conduct that resulted in malnourishment, lack of proper medical care, cruel punishment, mistreatment, or an accumulation of injuries, that resulted in the death of the child; in violation of section 18-6-401(1)(a), (7)(a)(I), C.R.S.

¶5 The case proceeded to trial, and at trial, the prosecution's evidence showed that when D.A.’s mother dropped him off at Archuleta's house at the beginning of the week, he was healthy. By the end of the week, however, D.A. was suffering from numerous injuries, including chemical burns on his forehead, nose, cheek, mouth, lips, ear, and knee, a torn frenulum (i.e., the flap of skin between the upper gum and lip), several broken ribs, and what appeared to be tweezer pinch marks all over his body. In addition, he was suffering from pneumonia, dehydration, and an infection in his bloodstream. The coroner who performed the autopsy on D.A. estimated that the chemical burns were approximately forty-eight to seventy-two hours old at the time of the autopsy and that the broken ribs were also forty-eight to seventy-two hours old "but certainly less than two weeks." The coroner could not estimate, however, when the torn frenulum occurred.

¶6 The coroner opined that each of D.A.’s injuries contributed to his death and that the ultimate cause of death was the combination of those injuries and the neglect in seeking help and getting enough food and liquid to him, which the coroner believed led to the infection and dehydration. Specifically, the coroner explained that the rib injuries limited D.A.’s ability to breathe and clear his lungs properly and that this assisted the pneumonia in "getting a better grip on him." In addition, the coroner believed that D.A.’s inability to breathe and the pain that he was experiencing probably limited his ability to nurse or use a bottle, resulting in dehydration. And the coroner stated that the mouth and frenulum injuries further contributed to D.A.’s poor feeding and intake, which also contributed to his dehydration.

¶7 At the close of the evidence, Archuleta asked the court to order the prosecution to elect a theory of prosecution, given that the prosecution had charged multiple theories of child abuse. The court denied this request, however, apparently agreeing with the prosecution's assertion that it did not need to elect a theory as long as the court made clear to the jury that the prosecution was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt each element of the offense, even if an element could have been established by alternative means.

¶8 Archuleta then requested that the court give the jury a so-called "modified unanimity instruction," and she tendered an instruction that would have required the jury to agree unanimously that she had committed the same act or acts that constituted the offense of child abuse. Archuleta's tendered instruction would further have advised the jurors that the prosecution had alleged multiple theories of prosecution and that, in order to convict, the jurors were required to agree on the theory of guilt. The court declined this request as well, relying on the same rationale that it had given for refusing to require the prosecution to elect a theory of prosecution. The court did, however, agree to provide the jury with interrogatories requiring the jurors to state whether they unanimously found beyond a reasonable doubt that the child abuse resulted in (1) D.A.’s death, (2) serious bodily injury to D.A., or (3) non-serious bodily injury to him.

¶9 The parties proceeded to present their closing arguments, and, as pertinent here, the prosecutor addressed the fourth element in the elemental instruction for child abuse, which required the prosecution to prove that Archuleta

caused an injury to a child's life or health, or permitted a child to be unreasonably placed in a situation that posed a threat of injury to the child's life or health, or engaged in a continued pattern of conduct that resulted in malnourishment, lack of proper medical care, cruel punishment, mistreatment or an accumulation of injuries.

¶10 The prosecutor told the jury that this element "has some options sort of within it, so it could be one of these, two of these, all three." The prosecutor immediately added, however, "[I]n this case really when you think about it she's done all three of these things." Consistent with this, the prosecutor ended his closing argument by reminding the jury that the coroner had testified that "the cause of death is injuries and neglect leading to infection and dehydration, and dehydration and pneumonia are the products of several different things. You can sort of just follow the chain of events from these injuries." The prosecutor thus argued that D.A.’s death "is a direct result of the injuries that [Archuleta] inflicted" and that the jurors

can think of it a little bit like a road that [D.A.] followed over the course of that week, a road that ends at his death. Each of the injuries [Archuleta] inflicted upon [D.A.], each of the conditions he developed are stops on that road. If you follow each of those backwards from his death, that road leads back to her, to her abuse and her neglect.

¶11 Notably, in defense counsel's closing, counsel did not dispute that the prosecution was proceeding on a theory that all of D.A.’s injuries combined to cause his death. To the contrary, counsel acknowledged that the prosecution's theory was that "all of these injuries happened and they resulted in death." Counsel argued, however, that the prosecution had not proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Archuleta had inflicted any life-threatening injuries on D.A., much less caused his death.

¶12 The jury found Archuleta guilty, unanimously determining in the interrogatories submitted to it that Archuleta's child abuse resulted in D.A.’s death, serious bodily injury, and non-serious bodily injury. The trial court subsequently sentenced Archuleta to twenty-four years in the Department of Corrections.

¶13 Archuleta then appealed, arguing, among other things, that the trial court had erred in denying her request for a modified unanimity instruction. In a published opinion, the division agreed with Archuleta, reversed her conviction, and remanded for a new trial. People v. Archuleta , 2019 COA 64, ¶¶ 43–44, ––– P.3d ––––.

¶14 In so ruling, the division acknowledged that the prosecution had charged Archuleta with one count of child abuse resulting in death, but the division observed that the charge included each of the three methods of committing child abuse set forth in the child abuse statute, section 18-6-401(1)(a), C.R.S. (2019). Archuleta , ¶¶ 12–21. Moreover, the division noted that the prosecution had argued to the jury that it could find Archuleta guilty based on any of these three theories. Id. at ¶ 21. And the division pointed out that the prosecution had presented evidence of multiple acts of child abuse, any one of which could have established that Archuleta (1) caused an injury to D.A.’s life or health or (2) permitted D.A. to be unreasonably placed in a situation that posed a threat of injury to his life or health. Id. at ¶ 22. In these...