People v. Murphy
| Decision Date | 12 April 2021 |
| Docket Number | Supreme Court Case No. 19SC409 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Petitioner, v. Justine Lynn MURPHY, Respondent. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Attorneys for Petitioner: Philip J. Weiser, Attorney General Megan C. Rasband, Assistant Attorney General Denver, Colorado
Attorneys for Respondents: Megan A. Ring, Public Defender Joseph P. Hough, Deputy Public Defender Denver, Colorado
En Banc
¶1 In this appeal, we review the court of appeals' decision in People v. Murphy , 2019 COA 39, ––– P.3d ––––, in which the division determined that the trial court improperly admitted lay opinion testimony and, therefore, reversed Justine Lynn Murphy's convictions for distributing methamphetamine and contributing to the delinquency of a minor, and remanded the case for a new trial. We consider whether the trial court properly admitted as lay opinion a police officer's testimony regarding the conclusions he drew from his observations of a witness's body language.1 We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that the police officer's testimony regarding the witness's body language constituted lay opinion testimony. We further conclude that the officer did not improperly comment on the credibility of another witness. Accordingly, we conclude that the officer's testimony was properly admitted, reverse the judgment of the court of appeals, and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
¶2 Fifteen-year-old K.H. was sent to his school counselor after a teacher expressed concern that K.H. appeared ill. During his meeting with the counselor, K.H. explained that he had attended a concert the night before with his thirty-five-year-old stepsister, Justine Murphy, and that he used methamphetamine while "partying" with her before the concert.2 The school then contacted K.H.'s father, and K.H. was admitted to a local hospital for evaluation and recovery. Deputy Mark Johnson, the school resource officer, interviewed K.H. at the hospital while K.H.'s father was present.
¶3 During the recorded interview, Deputy Johnson asked K.H. what kind of drugs he used recently and when he last used them. K.H. admitted that he shot up methamphetamine the previous night. Deputy Johnson later transitioned to asking K.H. where he got the methamphetamine, and the following exchange occurred:
¶4 When Deputy Johnson then asked how much he paid for it, K.H.'s father terminated the interview. K.H.'s father then walked into the hallway and was recorded saying to his girlfriend, Murphy's mother, "[H]e's asking about [Murphy] and he says she sold it to him, so I don't want to get her in any trouble either."
¶5 The prosecution subsequently charged Murphy with distributing a controlled substance and contributing to the delinquency of a minor.
¶6 Prior to trial, defense counsel objected to the prosecution's endorsement of Deputy Johnson as an expert in the field of "witness interviewing." Specifically, counsel objected to Deputy Johnson testifying, as he had at the preliminary hearing, about the inferences he drew from K.H.'s non-verbal response after asking, "Did you get it from [Murphy]?" The trial court overruled the objection, finding that the proffered testimony constituted lay opinion testimony because Deputy Johnson "observed [K.H.]'s body language and had a rational basis for forming an opinion as to his body language."3 The trial court further noted that the prosecution was seeking to elicit factual, rather than legal, conclusions.
¶7 When the prosecutor called K.H. to testify at trial, he changed his story and testified that he obtained the methamphetamine from a "dealer friend" at the concert and that he used it the morning before he went to school. In response to the prosecutor's questioning, he indicated that he understood the gravity of the charges against Murphy and that he would do anything to help her, but that he would not identify his dealer friend and could not explain why he waited so long to tell anyone this information. K.H. also testified, in response to questioning, that the recent change in his story was not influenced by Murphy's mother, who had described to Murphy, in a recorded jail conversation, the need to get K.H. to change his story. K.H. further testified that during the hospital interview, he didn't say anything and just shook his head "no" when Deputy Johnson asked, "Did you get it from [Murphy]?"
¶8 The prosecutor subsequently called Deputy Johnson to testify. During direct examination, the prosecutor asked Deputy Johnson about his observations and perception of K.H.'s body language during the hospital interview:
¶9 Defense counsel then renewed his prior objection, arguing that Deputy Johnson was offering expert testimony in the field of witness interviewing. Citing its earlier order, the trial court overruled the objection and noted that Deputy Johnson was offering proper lay, not expert, opinion testimony. The prosecutor then resumed the same line of questioning, focusing on what Deputy Johnson observed during the interview:
¶10 Deputy Johnson again reiterated that K.H. did not deny that Murphy gave him the methamphetamine. The prosecution subsequently played the audio recording of the hospital interview. The prosecutor paused the recording at the point in the interview when Deputy Johnson asked K.H. if he got the methamphetamine from Murphy and asked him what he observed during this portion of the hospital interview:
A. That's when his body language changed. He looked down and away from me and I took that, just based on his body language and the context of the question, and the context of the conversation we were having. Just prior to that, he told me that didn't remember. Well, I believed that he did remember, he just didn't want to tell me so that's why I changed, instead of giving him an open-ended question of who'd you get it from, I just asked him directly, did you get it from [Murphy], and his body language changed, leading me to believe that that was an affirmative and that's why I then stated, yeah, okay, and then ... immediately followed up with, did she just give it to you, or did she sell it to you?
¶11 At the conclusion of the trial, the jury found Murphy guilty of distributing methamphetamine and contributing to the delinquency of a minor.
¶12 Murphy appealed, and a division of the court of appeals reversed. The division analyzed Deputy Johnson's testimony describing the hospital interview under Venalonzo v. People, 2017 CO 9, ¶ 22, 388 P.3d 868, 875, and concluded that it "exceeded the bounds of CRE 701" and amounted to improper lay testimony because it "provided more than an opinion or inference rationally based on his perception." Murphy, ¶ 21. The division concluded that Deputy Johnson interpreted K.H.'s body language based on his training and experience. Id.
¶13 Judge Berger specially concurred. He agreed with the majority's analysis that Deputy Johnson's testimony was based on specialized knowledge, but he expressed concern with the majority's body language analysis, suggesting that it created an unworkable rule. Id. at ¶¶ 32-33, 41-43 (Berger, J., specially concurring).
¶14 We granted certiorari and now reverse.4
¶15 We begin by outlining the appropriate standard of review. Next, we detail the relevant case law distinguishing lay opinion from expert opinion testimony. Applying the applicable law to the specific facts of this case, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting Deputy Johnson's testimony as lay opinion because it was predicated on rationally drawn conclusions derived from his observations and perception of K.H.'s body language. We further conclude that Deputy Johnson's passing reference to his training and experience did not render his testimony expert opinion under CRE 702 and that his testimony did not improperly opine on the credibility of another witness. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the court of appeals.
¶16 We review a trial court's evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion. People v. Stewart, 55 P.3d 107, 122 (Colo. 2002). A trial court abuses its discretion when its ruling is manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable, or unfair. Id. With this standard in mind, we turn to the applicable law.
¶17 A witness's testimony may be classified as lay testimony, lay opinion testimony, or expert testimony. The common law typically confined lay witness testimony to stating facts, as opposed to providing opinions, inferences, or conclusions. See 1 Charles McCormick, McCormick on Evidence § 11 (8th ed. 2020). However, under the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thompson v. State
...with the challenged testimony but rather at the conclusion of Sergeant Ellis's testimony. People v. Murphy , 2021 CO 22, ¶ 39, 484 P.3d 678, 686 (Colo. 2021) (suggesting the "better practice" is to provide a contemporaneous limiting instruction if one is requested); Bolinger v. State , No. ......
-
People v. Montoya
...error requires reversal only if we conclude that it affected the substantial rights of a party. People v. Murphy , 2021 CO 22, ¶ 71, 484 P.3d 678. This means that the error substantially influenced the verdict or impaired the fairness of the trial. People v. Valera-Castillo , 2021 COA 91, ¶......