People v. Requejo
| Citation | 919 P.2d 874 |
| Decision Date | 04 April 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 93CA1972,93CA1972 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gary G. REQUEJO, Defendant-Appellant. . II |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Colorado |
Gale A. Norton, Attorney General, Stephen K. ErkenBrack, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Timothy M. Tymkovich, Solicitor General, Virginia B. Horton, Assistant Attorney General, Denver, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
David F. Vela, Colorado State Public Defender, Frances S. Brown, Chief Appellate Deputy State Public Defender, Denver, for Defendant-Appellant.
Opinion by Judge DAVIDSON.
Defendant, Gary G. Requejo, was charged with attempted first degree murder, first degree assault, and crime of violence, and he appeals from the judgment of conviction entered against him on a jury verdict finding him guilty of attempted reckless manslaughter and second degree assault. He raises two discrete issues: the propriety of the trial court's rulings excluding certain evidence and the denial of his motion to suppress. We disagree with defendant's second argument, but agree that the trial court's evidentiary ruling was reversible error. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new trial on the two charges of which he was convicted.
The charges arose from an altercation in the parking lot of a bar. Defendant and his friend joined in a fist fight between two bar patrons, and the victim intervened to break up the fight. After the victim pushed defendant's friend away from one of the initial participants, defendant grabbed the victim's arm, swung him around, and made jabbing, punching motions at the victim's side. As defendant continued to hold and punch the victim, defendant's friend pulled out a knife, and repeatedly stabbed the victim. This assault on the victim lasted about 17 seconds. The only eyewitness to the event testified that, although he saw defendant's friend use the knife, no one yelled or said anything. He also testified that, in his opinion, defendant was busy paying attention to the victim and probably did not see that his friend had a knife.
It was undisputed that defendant did not stab the victim. The charges against defendant therefore were based on a theory of complicity, that is, while knowing that the stabbing was occurring, defendant assisted his friend by holding the victim. The defense theory was simple: defendant did not see the knife in his friend's hand and did not realize that his friend was stabbing the victim while he was holding onto him. See § 18-1-603, C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol. 8B).
Thus, for the defense, the critical fact at trial was whether defendant saw the knife. Because the knife was being used just inches away from him, defendant sought to explain why he did not notice it. Accordingly, he was prepared to present testimony that, because of mild mental retardation, he did not notice things as quickly as the average person.
Specifically, he intended to present an expert to testify that he often did not pay attention to significant details in his environment and tended to focus on one thing at a time. Thus, the expert was prepared to explain why it was unlikely during the 17-second fight that defendant had focused both on the knife and his fight with the victim.
Prior to trial, the People filed a motion in limine to exclude the expert's testimony, as well as similar lay testimony to the effect that defendant was a slow thinker. Although the People conceded that the evidence otherwise would be relevant, and the expert testimony admissible under CRE 702, they asserted that unless defendant pled the affirmative defense of impaired mental condition (IMC defense) pursuant to § 16-8-103.5, C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol. 8B), the evidence was barred. Defendant countered that his proffered evidence was not evidence of impaired mental condition.
After a hearing, the court granted the motion and excluded the testimony. Defendant now argues that the court's ruling was error which improperly prevented him from presenting a defense. We agree.
Section 16-8-103.5, as applicable here, creates the affirmative defense of impaired mental condition. Pursuant to the statute, a defendant may argue impaired mental condition only through specific assertion of the affirmative defense at the time of arraignment or, with good cause, any time prior to trial. See §§ 16-8-103.5(1) and 16-8-103.5(7), C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol. 8A).
Testimony relating to an impaired mental condition defense may be excluded if the procedural requirements of the statute are not met. People v. Sandoval, 805 P.2d 1126 (Colo.App.1990); see also Rowe v. People, 856 P.2d 486 (Colo.1993) ().
Section 16-8-102(2.7), C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol. 8A), as applicable here, defines impaired mental condition as:
[A] condition of mind, caused by mental disease or defect, which does not constitute insanity but, nevertheless, prevents the person from forming a culpable mental state which is an essential element of a crime charged.... "[M]ental disease or defect" includes only those severely abnormal mental conditions which grossly and demonstrably impair a person's perception or understanding of reality .... (emphasis added)
Thus, if a defendant's condition of mind is so abnormal as to render him incapable of accurately comprehending his surrounding circumstances, he or she is required to plead the statutory defense in order to present any evidence to that effect. See People v. Sandoval, supra; and compare People v. Young, 825 P.2d 1004 (Colo.App.1991) () with People v. Fincham, 799 P.2d 419 (Colo.App.1990) ().
In its ruling, the trial court described defendant's proffered evidence as an attempt to show that, because defendant did not process information quickly, he did not "understand the reality" that there was a knife in his friend's hand. As characterized, and acknowledging that the question was "very close," the court ruled this was evidence of impaired mental condition admissible only pursuant to statute. Hence, because defendant did not plead the statutory defense, the court concluded his evidence was barred. We disagree. We do not interpret the condition of mind defined in § 16-8-102(2.7) to include defendant's proffered explanation as to why he did not notice that his friend was using a knife in the assault.
First, an impaired mental condition, as defined in § 16-8-102(2.7), concerns a condition of mind which is caused by a mental disease or defect. Here, nothing in the record indicates that defendant suffered from either. Compare § 27-10-102(7), C.R.S. (1989 Repl.Vol. 11B) () and People v. Parrish, 879 P.2d 453 (Colo.App.1994) () with § 16-9-401(2), C.R.S. (1995 Cum.Supp.) (" 'Mentally retarded defendant' means any defendant with significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning existing concurrently with substantial deficits in adaptive behavior....").
Secondly, the statute defines as impaired mental condition only those mental diseases or defects which are "severely abnormal." Here, defendant offered proof that he was mildly mentally retarded. The trial court did not find, nor is there anything in the record which indicates that such condition, even if it constituted a "mental disease or defect," is "severely abnormal." To the contrary, defendant's expert was prepared to testify that while defendant had a low I.Q. and was learning disabled, he did not have an impaired mental condition, and was competent, sane, and not mentally ill.
Further, the statute requires that any such "mental disease or defect" grossly and demonstrably impair a defendant's "perception" of reality. The People argue that defendant's condition of mind--his slow thinking--impaired his "perception" of reality because it prevented him from actually seeing the knife. However, we disagree with the People that the term "perception," as used in the statute, refers to simple visual observation.
The General Assembly has placed the affirmative defense of impaired mental condition, not in the criminal code defining offenses and affirmative defenses, but in the code of criminal procedure within the article pertaining to "Insanity--Incompetency--Release." See § 16-8-101, et seq., C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol. 8B). Consistent with this placement, the General Assembly has classified impaired mental condition as, in effect, a mental incapacity not amounting to insanity. See § 16-8-102(2.7).
Also, legislative history on recent changes to the procedural requirements for raising the impaired mental condition defense, although otherwise inapplicable here, confirms that the General Assembly intended that, in order to be found insane or to suffer an impaired mental condition, a person must be so ill as to be unable to recognize reality. See Hearings on H.B. 1120 before the House Judiciary Committee, 60th General Assembly, First Regular Session (January 19, 1995).
Thus, the People's interpretation of the term "perception" is superficial. The statute must be read to refer, not to the physical event of "seeing," but to the mental process of comprehension by recognition and interpretation of what has been seen. Cf. § 27-10-102(7) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Wakefield, Court of Appeals No. 15CA0654
...information important to protect the safety of officers engaged in immediate, on-scene investigation of a crime." People v. Requejo , 919 P.2d 874, 879 (Colo. App. 1996). Defendant's answers to questions regarding the extent of his injuries and whether there was anyone else in the residence......
-
People v. Washington
...on other grounds, 125 P.3d 403 (Colo. 2005), cert. denied, 547 U.S. 1137, 126 S.Ct. 2040, 164 L.Ed.2d 796 (2006), and People v. Requejo, 919 P.2d 874 (Colo.App.1996), indicated that defendant could present evidence of his mild mental retardation, but that defendant's expert witnesses, inclu......
-
People v. Janis
...to protecting the safety of the public or the officers engaged in immediate, on-scene investigation of a crime. People v. Requejo, 919 P.2d 874, 879 (Colo.App.1996) ; see also New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649, 104 S.Ct. 2626, 81 L.Ed.2d 550 (1984). Where the officer has reasonable grounds ......
-
People v. Perez
...public safety exception, applies most readily in the context of immediate, on-scene investigations of a crime. See People v. Requejo , 919 P.2d 874, 879 (Colo. App. 1996). The determinative question is whether the officer's questioning related to an objectively reasonable need to protect th......