People v. Jefferson
Decision Date | 19 June 2014 |
Docket Number | Court of Appeals No. 11CA1465 |
Citation | 411 P.3d 823 |
Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Dherl JEFFERSON, Defendant–Appellant. |
Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
John W. Suthers, Attorney General, Erin K. Grundy, Assistant Attorney General, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff–Appellee
Douglas K. Wilson, Colorado State Public Defender, Anne Stockham, Deputy State Public Defender, Denver, Colorado, for Defendant–Appellant
Opinion by JUDGE DAILEY
¶ 1 Defendant, Dherl Jefferson, appeals the judgment of conviction entered on jury verdicts finding him guilty of sexual assault on a child and sexual assault on a child by one in position of trust. We reverse and remand for a new trial.
¶ 2 Defendant was a friend of L.T., a mother of two small children. In 2008 and 2009, he watched the children without their mother being present four times, including two overnights. On one of the overnights, he allegedly picked up five-year-old J.B., brought her to his bedroom, laid her on the bed, pulled down her underwear, and touched her vaginal area.
¶ 3 This allegation surfaced after L.T. (the mother) had been lecturing the children about lying and the consequences of lying, one of which would be that they would not be believed if something bad happened to them. When the mother followed up by asking whether anything bad had happened to them, J.B. responded by saying that "Uncle Dherl" had touched her "booty," showing the mother, however, that he had touched her vaginal area. According to the mother, J.B. said it happened "every time we go over there."
¶ 4 After the mother reported the incident to the police, J.B. was subjected to a medical examination, which revealed no visible injuries, and to a forensic interview, which was videotaped. During the interview, J.B. stated that, besides pulling down her underwear and rubbing her bottom with his hand,1 defendant also got on top of her, moved up and down, and did "sex stuff" or "stuff like sex." At one point, she said defendant "humped" her.
¶ 5At trial, the prosecution presented:
¶ 6 Defendant did not testify. He argued, however, that J.B. was not credible and that the mother and the forensic interviewer had suggested the allegations of abuse to J.B. He introduced evidence that the mother had broken into his apartment and stolen some of his property while he was incarcerated. He also pointed to inconsistencies among the statements J.B. had made to her mother, J.B.'s live testimony, and her video-recorded statements to the forensic interviewer. And he suggested that J.B.'s allegation that defendant had "humped" her was unbelievable because J.V.B., who was in the next room, had not heard it happening.
¶ 7 The jury found defendant guilty of the above-mentioned charges, and the trial court sentenced him to an aggregate term of ten years to life imprisonment in the custody of the Department of Corrections.
¶ 8 Defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it gave the jury unrestricted and unsupervised access during deliberations to the videotaped forensic interview of J.B. We agree.
¶ 9 The trial court admitted the videotaped interview as child hearsay under section 13–25–129, C.R.S.2013. Defendant objected not to the admission of the videotaped interview as evidence, but to any possession of it by the jury that would allow it to be given undue emphasis by being played "over and over and over." Ultimately, the court exercised its discretion to permit the jury to have unrestricted access to the videotaped interview during deliberations. It reached its decision by reasoning that:
¶ 10 Generally, a jury is permitted to take into the jury room all exhibits received into evidence, subject to the trial court's discretion to order otherwise. See Frasco v. People, 165 P.3d 701, 703 (Colo.2007). The trial court has an obligation, however, to ensure that " ‘evidence is not so selected, nor used in such a manner, that there is a likelihood of it being given undue weight or emphasis by the jury.’ " Id . (quoting Settle v. People, 180 Colo. 262, 264, 504 P.2d 680, 680–81 (1972) ). This obligation is particularly pronounced with respect to jury access during deliberations to portions of trial testimony (as in Settle ) and to exhibits substituting for trial testimony. See Frasco, 165 P.3d at 704 ( ).
¶ 11 Thus, a trial court must "oversee with caution" the jury's use of exhibits of a testimonial character, including video recorded interviews of witnesses. See id . at 703–04 (citing People v. Montoya, 773 P.2d 623, 626 (Colo.App.1989) ); see also People v. DeBella, 219 P.3d 390, 402 n. 1 (Colo.App.2009) ( DeBella I ) (Dailey, J., dissenting) (), rev'd, 233 P.3d 664 (Colo.2010) ( DeBella II ).2
¶ 12 The trial court must exercise its discretion to permit, deny, or limit the jury's use of a testimonial exhibit by assessing (1) whether the exhibit will aid the jury in its proper consideration of the case, and, even if it would, (2) whether a party will nevertheless be unfairly prejudiced by the jury's use of the exhibit. Frasco, 165 P.3d at 704–05. Ultimately, the court "has an obligation ... to assure that juries are not permitted to use exhibits in a manner that is unfairly prejudicial to a party." Id. at 704.
¶ 13 We apply the abuse of discretion standard to a trial court's refusal to exclude or limit the jury's use of an exhibit during deliberations. DeBella II, 233 P.3d at 666–67. In this regard, "[a]n appellate court may not assign error to a trial court merely because it would have reached a different conclusion." Id . at 667. "Rather, ... a court's refusal to exclude or otherwise limit the use of an exhibit will generally be overturned only when it is manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable, or unfair," id. or it is based on an erroneous understanding or application of the law. See People v. Esparza–Treto, 282 P.3d 471, 480 (Colo.App.2011) ( ).
¶ 14 In Frasco, the supreme court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in giving a videotaped statement of the child sex assault victim to the jury. 165 P.3d at 705–06. Specifically, the court perceived an absence of unfair prejudice in the record, where (1) the trial court initially did not allow the jury to take the videotape into the jury room; (2) when the jury asked to view the exhibit, defense counsel did not object or request a limiting procedure or instruction; (3) the court, nonetheless, instructed the jury not to give the videotape any special weight; and (4) the defendant alleged nothing about the particulars of the videotape that would likely have rendered the jury's review unfairly prejudicial. See id.
¶ 15 In DeBella II, the supreme court again considered the propriety of a jury having unfettered access to videotaped interviews of a child sexual assault victim. There, the court reiterated the principles set forth in Frasco and explained that a trial court's failure to exercise its discretion because of an erroneous construction of controlling authority is tantamount to an abuse of discretion. 233 P.3d at 666–67. Applying these principles to the case before it, in which the trial court had relied on subsequently disapproved case law to allow the jury unimpeded access to the videotapes at issue, the supreme court concluded that the trial court's failure to exercise its discretion constituted an abuse of discretion. Id . at 668.
¶ 16 In the present case, the trial court affirmatively exercised its discretion to provide no...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Stewart
... ... E.g. , Venalonzo v. People , 2017 CO 9, ¶ 2 n.2, 388 P.3d 868 ; People v. Serra , 2015 COA 130, ¶ 59, 361 P.3d 1122 (evidentiary issues); People v. Marciano , 2014 COA 92M-2, ¶ 19, 411 P.3d 831 (evidentiary issues); People v. Jefferson , 2014 COA 77M, ¶ 39, 411 P.3d 823 (expert testimony), aff'd , 2017 CO 35, 393 P.3d 493. I think the interest in judicial efficiency demands that we do so. ¶ 65 I see no abuse of discretion. See People v. Ramos , 2017 CO 6, ¶ 5, 388 P.3d 888 (we review a district court's ruling on ... ...
- State v. Juan V.
- People v. Valdez
- People v. Heredia-Cobos
-
ARTICLE 25
...the trial court would have made a record of assessment. DeBella v. People, 233 P.3d 664 (Colo. 2010); People v. Jefferson, 2014 COA 77M, 411 P.3d 823, aff'd, 2017 CO 35, 393 P.3d 493. Trial court's failure to assess the potential for undue prejudice with respect to the jury's access to the ......
-
ARTICLE 25 EVIDENCE GENERAL PROVISIONS
...the trial court would have made a record of assessment. DeBella v. People, 233 P.3d 664 (Colo. 2010); People v. Jefferson, 2014 COA 77M, 411 P.3d 823, aff'd, 2017 CO 35, 393 P.3d 493. Trial court's failure to assess the potential for undue prejudice with respect to the jury's access to the ......
-
ARTICLE 25 EVIDENCE GENERAL PROVISIONS
...the trial court would have made a record of assessment. DeBella v. People, 233 P.3d 664 (Colo. 2010); People v. Jefferson, 2014 COA 77M, 411 P.3d 823, aff'd, 2017 CO 35, 393 P.3d 493. Trial court's failure to assess the potential for undue prejudice with respect to the jury's access to the ......