People v. Moltrer

• Decision Date: 25 August 1994
• Docket Number: No. 93CA0416,93CA0416
• Citation: 893 P.2d 1331
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Glenn Roman MOLTRER, Defendant-Appellant. . II
• Court: Colorado Court of Appeals

Page 1331

893 P.2d 1331

The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Glenn Roman MOLTRER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 93CA0416.

Colorado Court of Appeals,

Div. II.

Aug. 25, 1994.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 13, 1994.

Certiorari Denied May 8, 1995.

Gale A. Norton, Atty. Gen., Stephen K. ErkenBrack, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen., Timothy M. Tymkovich, Sol. Gen., Jonathan A. Abbott, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for plaintiff-appellee.

Law Offices of J.E. Losavio, Jr., J.E. Losavio, Jr., John W. Fresh, Pueblo, for defendant-appellant.

Opinion by Judge METZGER.

Defendant, Glenn Roman Moltrer, appeals the judgment of conviction entered on a jury verdict finding him guilty of distribution of a Schedule II controlled substance (cocaine). We affirm.

Several police officers from New Mexico and Colorado were engaged in completing an undercover buy of cocaine in Colorado. The plan involved the participation of a civilian informant from New Mexico. The informant was wired with a radio transmitter so police officers could monitor the buy.

The informant accompanied an undercover police officer into a bar operated by defendant. After several hours, the informant asked the officer for $100 to make a purchase. She then accompanied the defendant into a back room.

The officers listening to the transmission then heard a conversation between the informant and a man, whom two officers positively identified as the defendant. The informant purchased two bindles of cocaine, one for herself and one for her boyfriend. She left the bar with the undercover officer and immediately handed him a small package of cocaine.

After a time, the officers realized that they were "short some cocaine." At their request, the informant then telephoned defendant at his bar and said to him, in effect, "You shorted me, I paid you $100, where's the rest of the stuff?" Defendant replied "I gave you enough, you stuck the other one in your sock, the other package in your sock." A second bindle of cocaine was then discovered in the informant's sock.

The charge and conviction here at issue followed.

I.

On appeal, defendant first contends that the trial court committed reversible error in holding a hearing, outside the presence of defendant and his attorney, relating to a material witness' appearance. He argues that this proceeding constituted a critical stage of the criminal action and thus implicated his constitutional right to have counsel present. We disagree.

Sections 16-9-101 to 16-9-303, C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol. 8A) provide the framework to secure the attendance of out-of-state witnesses at criminal proceedings in this state. See Kelly v. People, 121 Colo. 243, 215 P.2d 336 (1950). Upon request of either party, a court in this state may issue a certificate stating that the presence of the witness is necessary and specifying the number of days the witness' presence will be required. This certificate is transmitted to a court of record in the county where the witness is found.

The witness is then summoned to appear before a court in that county. If that court determines that the witness' testimony will be material and that the witness' appearance will not cause undue hardship, the witness is ordered to be present at the time and place indicated in the certificate. The witness is obligated to appear as ordered and, upon appearance, is then tendered funds certain for "each day that he is required to travel and attend as a witness." Section 16-9-203(2), C.R.S. (1993 Cum.Supp.).

The right to counsel exists at every critical stage of a criminal proceeding. People v. Roybal, 618 P.2d 1121 (Colo.1980). As explained in Key v. People, 865 P.2d 822, 825 (Colo.1994): "Stages of criminal proceedings have been held to be 'critical' where there exists more than a 'minimal risk' that the absence of the defendant's counsel might impair the defendant's right to a fair trial."

There is no authority mandating the presence of a defendant or defense counsel at a proceeding in which a witness appears to be advised of the time he or she will be needed or required to testify at trial. In our view, the trial court's function at this stage is only ministerial. Therefore, we hold that a bright-line rule mandating the presence of defendant or his counsel at such a proceeding is not warranted.

However, defendant argues that, here, the proceedings "took an unexpected turn" because the trial court allowed the witness and her family members to express concerns about their safety. Also, during the hearing, the witness stated that she had no recollection of what had transpired at the bar on the night in question. Given these facts, defendant argues that the trial court was obligated to adjourn the proceeding and to require the presence of defendant and his attorney. We are not persuaded.

In our view, the referenced events did not transform a ministerial proceeding into a critical stage. And, here, defendant's right to a fair trial was not impaired by his absence or that of his counsel at the proceeding.

This witness was endorsed on the information which had been filed on March 30, 1992. Thus, defense counsel could not have been surprised at her appearance to testify. Indeed, when defense counsel learned of the existence of the proceeding he expressed no surprise, nor did he request a transcript, a recess, or a continuance to investigate further.

It is also significant that defense counsel expressed no surprise when the witness testified at trial that she had no memory of the transaction. And, the trial record contains no indication that the witness had ever indicated that she did remember the transaction with defendant.

Under these circumstances, the record gives no indication that defendant was prejudiced by the trial court's manner of conducting the proceeding with the material witness. Consequently, we conclude that the trial court did not err in failing to require the presence of defendant or his attorney at the proceeding.

II.

Defendant also contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for new trial based on the court's admission of summaries of the electronically monitored conversations between the informant and defendant pursuant to § 16-10-201, C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol. 8A). We find no error.

A.

In his motion for new trial, defendant argued that the informant had claimed that her consent to electronic monitoring was obtained by coercion. Therefore, he contended, the trial court erred in not holding a hearing, sua sponte, concerning that issue at trial.

In order to prove voluntariness and consent, it is ordinarily sufficient for the prosecution to show that the informant engaged in the conversation knowing that it was being monitored. However, if there is an allegation of coercion, the prosecution must show that no undue pressure, threats, or improper inducements have been made. People v. Rivera, 792 P.2d 786 (Colo.1990).

In denying defendant's motion for new trial, the trial court held that it "is not satisfied that the government or law enforcement authorities, either in New Mexico or in Colorado, coerced [the informant] in any way to allow the tape ... the Court does not have any facts to resemble any case which represents lack of consent or reprehension on the part of the officials."

Our review of the record convinces us that these findings were made with ample support. Accordingly, we reject defendant's contention. Page v. Clark, 197 Colo. 306, 592 P.2d 792 (1979).

B.

Defendant also contended in his motion for new trial that the trial court erred in applying the provisions of § 16-10-201 to allow the summaries of the electronically monitored conversations here. This contention is without merit.

The informant testified at trial that she did not remember anything that had occurred while she was in the bar. Therefore, at the prosecutor's request, the trial court admitted evidence consisting of oral summaries of the conversations between the informant and defendant pursuant to the provisions of § 16-10-201.

That statute provides:

(1) Where a witness in a criminal trial has made a previous statement inconsistent with his testimony at the trial, the previous inconsistent statement may be shown by any otherwise competent evidence and is admissible not only for the purpose of impeaching the testimony of the witness, but also for the purpose of establishing a fact to which his testimony and the inconsistent statement relate, if:

(a) The witness, while testifying, was given an opportunity to explain or deny the statement or the witness is still available to give further testimony in the trial; and

(b) The previous inconsistent statement purports to relate to a matter within the witness's own knowledge.

Defendant, in essence, argues that this statute is not applicable to a situation in which the prior statement consists of a conversation overheard by police. We are unaware of any authority for this proposition.

However, we are guided by People v. Aldrich, 849 P.2d 821 (Colo.App.1992). In that case, a division of this court approved the use of the statute in a situation in which a victim's oral statement to a deputy sheriff was admitted after the victim had testified that she did not remember anything. The opinion held that: "The witness, while testifying, must either be given an opportunity to explain or must be available to testify further at the trial, and the statement must relate to matters within the witness' own knowledge." People v. Aldrich, supra, at 826.

Here, the informant was explicitly advised that she could be recalled to testify, and yet she persisted in her testimony that she remembered nothing of the transaction in the bar. The statement, consisting of the conversation between the informant and defendant, purported to be a matter within the informant's own knowledge. And, the informant was available for cross-examination.

These facts are sufficient to warrant the application of § 16-10-201, and we conclude that the trial court...