People v. Cole
Decision Date | 05 June 1978 |
Docket Number | No. C-1341,C-1341 |
Citation | 584 P.2d 71,195 Colo. 483 |
Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Petitioner, v. Doyle Kenneth COLE, Defendant-Respondent. |
Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
J. D. MacFarlane, Atty. Gen., David W. Robbins, Deputy Atty. Gen., Edward G. Donovan, Sol. Gen., Deborah L. Bianco, Asst. Atty. Gen., J. Stephen Phillips, Chief, Crim. App. Section, David H. Zook, Deputy Dist. Atty., Denver, for plaintiff-petitioner.
Walter L. Gerash, P. C., Jeffrey A. Springer, Denver, for defendant-respondent.
The defendant, Doyle Kenneth Cole, was charged in an information with the sale of a narcotic drug (heroin) and conspiracy to sell a narcotic drug with the intent to induce or aid the unlawful use or possession ("hard sale"). Trial to a jury resulted in the defendant's conviction of conspiracy to sell a narcotic drug and of the lesser included offense of "soft sale." The court of appeals reversed the convictions and ordered a new trial in People v. Cole, Colo.App., 570 P.2d 8 (1977). We granted certiorari and now affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand with directions for a new trial.
The prosecution contends on appeal that the court of appeals erred when it held that (1) a witness may not be impeached by his post-arrest silence, and (2) statements made by a defendant in connection with a withdrawn plea agreement are inadmissible for any purpose in a trial on the merits. We address the issues in the order stated.
The principles applicable to impeachment by post-arrest silence were set out in United States v. Hale, 422 U.S. 171, 95 S.Ct. 2133, 45 L.Ed.2d 99 (1975):
See also Grunewald v. United States, 353 U.S. 391, 77 S.Ct. 963, 1 L.Ed.2d 931 (1957). In United States v. Hale, supra, the Supreme Court concluded that the defendant's silence during custodial interrogation and after Miranda 1 warnings lacked the requisite inconsistency with exculpatory testimony offered at the trial and was, therefore, inadmissible for impeachment purposes.
The factors which cause post-arrest silence to be inherently ambiguous were discussed in United States v. Hale, supra "(A)n arrestee . . . is under no duty to speak and, as in this case, has ordinarily been advised by government authorities only moments earlier that he has a right to remain silent, and that anything he does say can and will be used against him in court.
The Court concluded that the defendant's post-arrest silence in United States v. Hale, supra, was of dubious probative value.
One year after its decision in United States v. Hale, supra, the Supreme Court held that impeachment of a defendant by his post-arrest silence violates the due process clause of the United States Constitution. U.S.Const., Amend. XIV. Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610, 96 S.Ct. 2240, 49 L.Ed.2d 91 (1976). Although it elevated the basis for its earlier decision to a constitutional level, the Court continued to recognize the inherent ambiguity which is tied to post-arrest silence:
The fact that this case concerns the impeachment of a defense witness, rather than a defendant, does not relieve the prosecution of the burden of establishing that the witness' silence is inconsistent with his trial testimony. United States v. Rubin, 559 F.2d 975 (5th Cir. 1977); United States v. Williams, 464 F.2d 927 (8th Cir. 1972). Although the constitutional protections which constitute the basis for the Court's decision, in Doyle v. Ohio, supra, do not extend to witnesses, the logic of the evidentiary principles relied upon in United States v. Hale, supra, apply with equal force to defendant and witness alike. The issue in either case is whether the prosecution has established a threshold inconsistency between the witness' post-arrest silence and his trial testimony.
The defense witness impeached by post-arrest silence at the defendant's trial was Michael Johnson, a co-conspirator named in the conspiracy count of the information. When Johnson was arrested, he exercised his constitutional right against self-incrimination and remained silent. Johnson's testimony offered an explanation of the circumstances surrounding the arrests favorable to the defendant's innocence. On cross-examination, the prosecution was permitted to impeach Johnson's credibility by questions concerning his post-arrest silence and his failure to relate the story advanced at trial to the police.
A danger inherent in permitting the prosecution to impeach a witness allegedly involved in the same criminal transaction as the defendant with his post-arrest silence is that the jury will infer guilt on the part of the witness and transfer that guilt to the defendant. United States v. Rubin, supra. Under the circumstances of this case, the improper impeachment of the defense's primary witness was critical to the jury's acceptance of the defendant's theory of the case and constituted prejudicial error. Johnson's testimony, if believed, would have explained the sequence of events surrounding the criminal episode in a manner consistent with the defendant's innocence.
Prior to the commencement of trial, the defendant tendered a plea of guilty to the "soft sale" of a narcotic drug, pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement. The plea was conditioned upon the defendant being granted probation. The trial court accepted the conditional plea, subject to receipt of a probation department report concerning the propriety of granting the defendant probation. Review of the probation report, however, caused the trial court not to grant probation. The defendant then withdrew his plea of guilty, and the case was set for trial.
At the time of trial, the defendant offered a theory of defense which was not consistent with his statement to the court at the providency hearing. The district attorney advised the court of his intent to use the defendant's statement at the providency hearing for impeachment purposes if the defendant testified.
The defendant, thereafter, filed a motion to suppress all statements he had made in connection with his withdrawn guilty plea. The statements sought to be suppressed were made in response to questions propounded by the trial court during the providency hearing. In an effort to establish a factual basis for the defendant's guilty plea, the court stated that it wanted "to know what the soft sale was, where it took place and what you did." The defendant provided the requested information.
At the In camera suppression hearing, the trial court ruled that the fact that the defendant had tendered and withdrawn a plea of guilty would be inadmissible for any purpose. Section 16-7-303, C.R.S.1973; Crim.P. 11(f)(6). But the trial court held that the defendant's statements at the providency hearing were voluntary and could be used for impeachment purposes if no reference was made to the context in which they had been made. The court of appeals reversed, holding that statements made in connection with a withdrawn plea of guilty are inadmissible for any purpose.
We find this issue comes within the ambit of Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222, 91 S.Ct. 643, 28 L.Ed.2d 1 (1971), wherein the Supreme Court declared:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Trujillo, No. 01SC434.
...New York, 401 U.S. at 225-26, 91 S.Ct. 643 (1971); James, 493 U.S. at 312,110 S.Ct. 648; Branch, 805 P.2d at 1081; People v. Cole, 195 Colo. 483, 490, 584 P.2d 71, 76 (1978). If the defendant testifies at trial and his testimony is inconsistent with his unwarned, voluntary, custodial statem......
-
Lanari v. People
...psychiatrist does not violate defendant's privilege to testify or privilege against self-incrimination); People v. Cole, 195 Colo. 483, 584 P.2d 71 (1978) (voluntary statements by defendant at providency hearing admissible for impeachment purposes at trial subsequent to withdrawal of guilty......
-
State v. Amidon
...that his plea will be accepted. In my opinion . . . [such statements are] unreliable at best. People v. Cole, 195 Colo. 483, 584 P.2d 71, 77 (1978) (concurring in part and dissenting in part). ¶ 27. Courts have relied on this kind of reasoning to reject the extension of Harris to statements......
-
Williams v. District Court, El Paso County
...omission of a significant detail which it would have been natural to mention in the prior statement. Id. at 74-75; see People v. Cole, 195 Colo. 483, 584 P.2d 71 (1978); Rose v. Otis, 18 Colo. 59, 31 P. 493 (1892). A fair reading of Plotz's testimony, given at the hearing on the motion for ......
-
Prior Inconsistent Statements
...22. People v. Allen, 193 Colo. 526, 568 P.2d 56 (1977); People v. Pearson, 190 Colo. 313, 546 P.2d 1259 (1976). 1980 23. People v. Cole, 195 Colo. 483,584 P.2d 71 (1978). 24. United States v. Hale, 422 U.S. 171 (1975); Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (1976). 25. People v. Cole, supra, note 23. ......
-
The Effect of Criminal Guilty Pleas in Administrative Hearings
...781 P.2d 1384 (Colo. 1989); C.R.Crim.P. 11(b)(6). 8. People v. Cole, 570 P.2d 8, 11 n.1 (Colo.App. 1977), aff'd in part and rev'd in part, 584 P.2d 71 (Colo. 1978); Niziolek, supra, note 1364. 9. McCormick v. United States, 539 F.Supp. 1179 (D.Colo. 1982); Teitelbaum Furs, Inc. v. Dominion ......
-
Can Colorado Administrative Agencies Settle Judicial Review Actions?
...review cases absent specific statutory authority to permit such settlements. NOTES _____________________ Footnotes: 1. People v. Cole, 584 P.2d 71, 77 (Colo. 1978) ("In all forms of litigation the law favors settlement of legal disputes."); School District No. 1 v. Faker, 105 P.2d 406, 407 ......
-
Impeachment
...note 3. 71. People v. Wilson, 678 P.2d 1024 (Colo. App. 1983), cert. denied, Wilson v. Colorado, 469 U.S. 843. 72. Id. 73. People v. Cole, 584 P.2d 71 (Colo. 1978). 74. 378 U.S. 368 (1964). 75. Cole, supra, note 73. 76. CRS § 16-8-103(4). 77. CRS § 16-8-107(1). 78. People v. Branch, 805 P. ......