People v. Reynolds

Decision Date20 May 2010
Docket NumberNo. 08CA0397.,08CA0397.
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff–Appellee,v.Jason Benjamin REYNOLDS, Defendant–Appellant.
CourtColorado Court of Appeals

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

John W. Suthers, Attorney General, Majid Yazdi, Assistant Attorney General, Denver, Colorado, for PlaintiffAppellee.Dean Neuwirth, P.C., Dean Neuwirth, Denver, Colorado; Keyonyu X O'Connell, Denver, Colorado, for DefendantAppellant.Opinion by Judge CARPARELLI.

Defendant, Jason Benjamin Reynolds, appeals the judgment of conviction entered upon jury verdicts finding him guilty of two counts of extreme indifference first degree murder and two counts of vehicular homicide. He also appeals the sentence imposed. We affirm.

I. Evidence

This is a road rage case in which defendant's actions caused the deaths of two other drivers. Among other things, defendant contends that one victim's conduct was retaliatory, was grossly negligent, and, thus, was an independent intervening cause.

A witness testified that, about 5 p.m. on November 8, 2005, he was driving a pickup traveling southbound on E–470 when he encountered barriers in the right lane at East Smoky Hill Road. The witness said that, after he moved into the left lane and slowed to about 65 miles per hour, a Jeep with big tires driven by a man in his thirties came up behind him, tailgated him, and reportedly came within a foot of the pickup's bed. According to the witness, after he passed the barriers, he gave a right turn signal and began moving into the right lane to allow the Jeep to pass. However, as he began changing lanes, the Jeep also moved into the right lane and he had to return to the left lane. The Jeep sped away at an estimated speed of 85 to 90 miles per hour, weaving in and out of traffic. The witness testified that he was so shaken that he exited the highway at Gartrell Road, which was sooner than he had planned.

Another witness testified that, shortly thereafter, he was driving southbound on E–470 and a Toyota 4Runner was ahead of him. He saw the Jeep approach and tailgate it and flash its lights to pass. After he had focused his attention elsewhere, he noticed the Jeep had moved in front of the 4Runner and then saw the 4Runner swerve to the left to avoid hitting the Jeep. According to the witness, the 4Runner corrected back to the right, but overcorrected and hit the side of the Jeep. After hitting the Jeep, the 4Runner swerved back to the left, crossed the median, and collided with a Ford Explorer in the northbound lane. The drivers of the 4Runner and the Explorer in the northbound lane both died as a result of the collision. A trooper who responded to the accident scene testified the same witness told him that defendant had “brake checked” the driver. However, at trial, the witness was unable to say whether he had seen the Jeep's brake lights come on.

The trooper testified that, at the scene, defendant told him he had changed lanes in front of the 4Runner when his work boot “accidentally hit his brake,” and that “the 4Runner got up next to him and rammed his vehicle.” In a written statement, defendant said:

As I pulled in front of this vehicle, I went to up shift my Jeep and I jammed half my boot onto the brake pedal. My Jeep slowed quickly and the vehicle behind me obviously had to slow.... [The driver] became angry and yanked his car into the [left] lane. He quickly accelerated and pulled up next to me. He was pointing at me or pointing something at me, yelling and all at the same time with no hesitation rammed my Jeep in a “side swipe” motion. Due to the large tires on my Jeep he instantly rebounded off the tires. At the same time he left the [right] lane and traveled onto the median, he went up the other side of the median and became airborne. At this time, I was on the edge of rolling my own vehicle because of the impact when he hit me....

An investigator testified that he had also talked with defendant at the scene of the accident. He said defendant told him he had passed the 4Runner on the left and “swooped in front of him, and jammed [his] foot on the brake when [he] was shifting gears.” The investigator testified that defendant said this “obviously angered the driver,” and that “the driver ... then pulled up alongside him on the left, made gestures ... and then ... intentionally swerved and rammed the side of his Jeep.”

The witness who had seen the accident testified that he had also talked with defendant at the scene and that defendant said something to the effect of, [T]hat guy waved something at me,” or [H]e hit me.”

A tow truck driver who responded to the scene testified that defendant had told him, [T] he guy got mad and tried to swerve around [me], and when he came up beside [me] he bumped into [my] Jeep and it shot him across the other side of the road ... where the accident happened.” The tow truck driver also testified that defendant said “that guy got what he deserved.”

A prosecution expert testified that given the tire marks on the highway and the speed of travel, contrary to defendant's allegation, not enough time passed for the 4Runner driver to have pulled alongside the Jeep and gestured to defendant.

Defendant did not testify. However, he presented two expert witnesses who testified, among other things, that the 4Runner driver made an unforced decision to move into the left lane, he lost control because the road curved, and the resulting yaw led to the impact with the Jeep. Neither expert believed the 4Runner driver had intentionally rammed the Jeep. The defense experts opined that the cause of the ultimate crash was not the Jeep braking in front of the 4Runner, but, rather, the 4Runner driver's independent loss of control after the 4Runner driver voluntarily moved to the left lane.

The prosecution also presented evidence that defendant drove his Jeep on E–470 between home and work each day and that, on separate occasions, two other drivers had reported defendant for driving dangerously on that highway. The first driver testified that shortly after 5 p.m. in July 2005, he was driving southbound on E470 when a truck registered to defendant came upon him at a high rate of speed, got very close to his rear bumper, and passed him on the right, and the truck's driver honked his horn, made an obscene gesture, and sped off. The second driver testified that, early one evening in September 2005, he was driving 70 or 75 miles per hour in the left southbound lane of E–470 while passing a vehicle in the right lane. A truck registered to defendant came upon him from behind, moved to the right, and came within inches of his vehicle; the truck's driver made an obscene gesture, forced him to move to the left toward the median, and squeezed the truck between his car and the vehicle he had been passing in the slow lane. The driver testified that, after passing him, the truck's driver drove into the left lane in front of him and slammed on his brakes, forcing him to put all his weight on his brakes to avoid hitting the truck. The driver testified that he “stood on [his] brakes” so hard that he “literally came off the seat.” He testified further that he started to release his brake after the truck stopped braking, but that the truck's driver hit his brakes a second time, again forcing him to “stand” on his brakes. The incident was so severe the driver called 911 and reported the incident and the truck's license number.

Based on these reports, in a letter dated less than six weeks before the events leading to this criminal case, the State Patrol notified defendant that his truck was reported to have engaged in dangerous acts including speeding, unsafe lane changes, and following too closely.

A jury found defendant guilty of two counts of extreme indifference first degree murder, two counts of vehicular homicide, and two counts of careless driving resulting in death. The court sentenced defendant to two consecutive mandatory life sentences on the extreme indifference murder counts, two consecutive twelve-year aggravated sentences on the vehicular homicide counts, and two consecutive one-year jail sentences on the careless driving resulting in death counts. The trial court ordered that the sentences for vehicular homicide and careless driving would run concurrent with the sentences for extreme indifference murder.

II. Independent Intervening Cause Instruction

Defendant contends that his convictions for extreme indifference first degree murder and vehicular homicide must be reversed because the trial court declined to instruct the jury on the affirmative defense of independent intervening cause. We disagree.

Defendant asked for an intervening cause instruction during the jury instruction conference, arguing that the evidence included his out-of-court statements that the 4Runner driver intentionally rammed his Jeep. Defendant contends this was sufficient “credible evidence” to support an instruction. The trial court denied defendant's request, stating that, when the court viewed all of the evidence in the light most favorable to defendant, even if the 4Runner driver was grossly negligent, there was no break in the chain of causation that defendant started.

A. Law

It is a trial court's duty to instruct the jury on all matters of law. People v. Munsey, 232 P.3d 113, 118 (Colo.App. 2009). To be entitled to an affirmative defense instruction, a defendant must present “some credible evidence” on the issue addressed in the instruction. People v. Garcia, 113 P.3d 775, 783–84 (Colo.2005); People v. Saavedra–Rodriguez, 971 P.2d 223, 228 (Colo.1998). An independent intervening cause defense is treated as an affirmative defense for the purpose of determining the quantum of evidence necessary to submit the defense to the jury. Saavedra–Rodriguez, 971 P.2d at 228. Whether a defendant has met this burden is a question of law for the trial court. Consequently, we review the trial court's determination de novo. Garcia, 113...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • People v. Krueger
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Colorado
    • May 10, 2012
    ......G. Cumulative Error         ¶ 78 Lastly, defendant contends that the errors he has alleged on appeal amount to cumulative reversible error. Because we have concluded that there were no errors, we reject this contention. See People v. Reynolds, 252 P.3d 1128, 1134 (Colo.App.2010). III. C.A.R. Noncompliance         ¶ 79 Defendant's opening brief does not comply fully with C.A.R. 32 and the People's answer brief does not comply fully with C.A.R. 28.         ¶ 80 Defendant's opening brief employs a nonroman style font, ......
  • People v. Smoots
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Colorado
    • November 21, 2013
    ......¶ 9 An intervening cause defense is treated as an affirmative defense for the purpose of determining the amount of evidence necessary to submit the defense to the jury. People v. Reynolds, 252 P.3d 1128, 1131 (Colo.App.2010). A defendant is therefore entitled to an affirmative defense instruction if he presents "some credible evidence" on the issue addressed in the instruction. People v. Garcia, 113 P.3d 775, 783–84 (Colo.2005) ; Reynolds, 252 P.3d at 1131. ¶ 10 Actions qualify ......
  • People v. Cook
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Colorado
    • March 27, 2014
    ......A conviction will not be reversed if the cumulative effect of any errors did not substantially prejudice defendant's right to a fair trial. Id. ¶ 73 Because we have found no error, we reject defendant's final contention. See, e.g., People v. Reynolds......
  • People v. Strock
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Colorado
    • August 19, 2010
    ...words, that “the defendant voluntarily drove while intoxicated and that his driving resulted in the victim's death”); People v. Reynolds, 252 P.3d 1128, 1134 (Colo.App.2010). Proximate cause means a cause which in natural and probable sequence produced the claimed injury. People v. Prieto, ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT