People v. Durre
| Citation | 690 P.2d 165 |
| Decision Date | 21 May 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 82SA176,82SA176 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edgar Lee DURRE, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Colorado |
Duane Woodard, Atty. Gen., Charles B. Howe, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen., Richard H. Forman, Sol. Gen., John Daniel Dailey, First Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for plaintiff-appellee.
David F. Vela, Colorado State Public Defender, James England, Thomas M. Van Cleave, III, Deputy State Public Defenders, Denver, for defendant-appellant.
In this phase of a bifurcated appeal, we consider the single issue of whether special jury verdicts on aggravation and mitigation, which were returned at a sentencing hearing conducted pursuant to section 16-11-103, 8 C.R.S. (1973 & Supp.1983), after the jury had found the defendant guilty of first degree murder, satisfied the statutory requirement of unanimity so as to validate the sentence of death thereafter imposed by the trial court. 1 We conclude that the verdicts were impermissibly uncertain and thus failed to satisfy the unanimity requirement essential for any verdict directly resulting in a sentence of death. We accordingly reverse the district court's imposition of the death sentence and order a limited remand of the case to the district court for the entry of a sentence of life imprisonment, with directions to immediately return the case to this court for resolution of other issues relating to the guilt phase of the trial.
In December 1980, the People charged the defendant-appellant, Edgar Lee Durre, by information with first degree murder, 2 first degree kidnapping, 3 and aggravated robbery. 4 The defendant pled not guilty to the charges and was tried during August and September 1981 in the Weld County District Court. During an extensive voir dire, the twelve jurors and two alternates eventually selected to hear the case all confirmed that, if they found the defendant guilty of first degree murder, they had no conscientious scruples about capital punishment that might interfere with their ability to follow the court's instructions in determining whether the factual predicates necessitating imposition of the death penalty had been established. 5 At the guilt phase of the trial the People presented evidence showing that on November 29, 1980, Durre and two other men, James Manners and Richard Baldwin, 6 kidnapped and robbed Gary L. Statler at a Denver motel, confined him for several days in an Aurora house where they forced him to write checks to a friend of the defendant, and then took him to a rural part of Weld County where they stabbed him to death. On September 23, 1981, the jury returned a verdict finding Durre guilty of first degree murder (felony murder). 7
Because the jury had returned a guilty verdict on the charge of first degree murder, a class 1 felony, the trial court conducted a sentencing hearing pursuant to section 16-11-103, 8 C.R.S. (1973 & Supp.1983). This provision requires the same jury which rendered the guilty verdict on a class 1 felony to return verdicts on the existence or nonexistence of several mitigating, additional mitigating, and aggravating factors relating to the defendant and the circumstances surrounding the crime. Under the provisions of section 16-11-103(4), the trial court is required to sentence the defendant to life imprisonment if the jury returns a verdict finding the existence of one or more mitigating or additional mitigating factors or the absence of any aggravating factors, or if the jury cannot unanimously agree on any verdict. In contrast, if the jury returns verdicts finding the nonexistence of any mitigating or additional mitigating factors and the existence of at least one aggravating factor, the statute requires the trial court to sentence the defendant to death.
At the outset of the sentencing hearing the court orally advised the jurors that at the conclusion of the evidence they would decide upon the existence of certain mitigating and aggravating factors and their decision on these factors "will determine what penalty shall be imposed." Both sides then made brief evidentiary presentations to the jury at the sentencing hearing. The parties first stipulated that the People had made a prior plea and sentence offer involving a guilty plea to first degree murder with a life sentence and a guilty plea to aggravated robbery with the sentence to be determined by the court and that Durre refused the offer. The People rested on the evidence presented at the guilt phase of the trial. A professor of theology then testified on behalf of the defendant and offered his opinion that, based on his meeting and discussions with the defendant, a death sentence was inappropriate in this case. The People called the district attorney in rebuttal to testify to the motives underlying the plea bargain offer.
At the conclusion of the evidence the court instructed the jury and outlined in Instruction No. 1 the jury's statutory duty as follows:
(a). [t]he defendant was under the age of 18 years, or
(b). his capacity to appreciate wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law was significantly impaired, but not so impaired as to constitute a defense to prosecution, or
(c). he was under unusual and substantial duress, although not such duress as to constitute a defense to prosecution, or
(d). he was a principal in the offense which was committed by another, but his participation was relatively minor, although not so minor as to constitute a defense to prosecution, or
(e). he could not have reasonably foreseen that his conduct in the course of the commission of the offense for which he was convicted would cause, or would create a grave risk of causing, death to another person.
(a). The emotional state of the Defendant at the time the crime was committed;
(b). Any other evidence which bears on the question of mitigation.
(a). The Defendant intentionally killed a person kidnapped or being held hostage by him or anyone associated with him; or,
(b). The Defendant was a party to an agreement in furtherance of which Gary L. Statler was intentionally killed; or,
(c). The Defendant committed First Degree Kidnapping or Aggravated Robbery and in the course or furtherance of, or immediate flight therefrom[,] he intentionally caused the death of a person other than one of the participants. A person intentionally causes the death of another when his conscious objective is to cause the death of that person.
(d). The Defendant committed the offense in an especially heinous, cruel, or depraved manner.
"Your verdict as to the foregoing factors must be unanimous." 9
Three verdict forms were submitted to the jury. Verdict Form No. I listed the five "statutory" mitigating circumstances set out in Instruction No. 1 and directed the jury foreman to place an "X" in front of any mitigating circumstance found to exist or any mitigating circumstance the nonexistence of which the prosecution had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, and then to sign the verdict. Verdict Form No. I further directed the jury to proceed to consider Verdict Form No. II only if the finding on Verdict Form No. I was that none of the statutory mitigating circumstances were present. Verdict Form No. II began as follows:
"We, the jury, having considered all the evidence, now find the following additional mitigating circumstances to exist in sufficient degree to justify a sentence of life imprisonment:
( )* A. The emotional state of the defendant at the time the crime was committed.
( )* B. Any other evidence which bears on the question of mitigation.
Verdict Form No. II then provided a space for the jury to list any additional mitigating factors and informed the jury that if they found "an additional mitigating circumstance or circumstances sufficient to justify a life sentence," the jury need not proceed further; if, however, the jury did "not find additional mitigating circumstances sufficient to justify a life sentence rather than death to be present," the verdict directed the jury foreman to sign that part of Verdict Form No. II so indicating and told the jury to then proceed to the third verdict. Verdict Form No. III listed the four...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Kimble
...U.S. 492, 17 S.Ct. 154, 41 L.Ed. 528) charge that required reversal and resentencing. (524 A.2d at pp. 280-283, 284-285.) In People v. Durre (Colo.1984) 690 P.2d 165, the Colorado Supreme Court reversed a penalty judgment because the jury's decision to sentence the defendant to death was no......
-
People v. Rodriguez
...v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320, 105 S.Ct. 2633, 86 L.Ed.2d 231 (1985), People v. Drake, 748 P.2d 1237 (Colo.1988), and People v. Durre, 690 P.2d 165 (Colo.1984), and that comments by the trial judge and the prosecutors reinforced the error. This contention is without In Caldwell v. Mississipp......
-
People v. Davis
...apprise jury of their role "as the sole arbiter of whether a sentence of death should be imposed upon the defendant"); People v. Durre, 690 P.2d 165 (Colo.1984) (death sentence reversed where jury verdict manifested some uncertainty as to whether all jurors had unanimously agreed to death s......
-
People v. White, 91SA248
...need for certainty and reliability" in its application. People v. Drake, 748 P.2d 1237, 1254 (Colo.1988); accord People v. Durre, 690 P.2d 165, 173 (Colo.1984). Colorado's death sentencing statute must be construed in light of the strong concern for reliability of any sentence of death. Id.......
-
A Response on Behalf of the Colorado District Attorneys' Council
...to whether they were guilty. See People v. District Court, 586 P.2d 31 (1978) (defect in death penalty statute); People v. Durre, 690 P.2d 165 (Colo. 1984), affirmed in People v. Durre, 713 P.2d 1344 (Colo. App. 1985), cert. denied (1986); People v. Drake, 748 P.2d 1237 (Colo. 1988) (convic......