People v. Rubanowitz
| Decision Date | 16 June 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 81CA0999,81CA0999 |
| Citation | 673 P.2d 45 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ronald Lee RUBANOWITZ, Defendant-Appellant. . II |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Robert S. Gallagher, Jr., Dist. Atty., James C. Sell, Chief Deputy Dist. Atty., Littleton, for plaintiff-appellee.
J. Gregory Walta, State Public Defender, Barbara S. Blackman, Deputy State Public Defender, Denver, for defendant-appellant.
Defendant, Ronald Rubanowitz, appeals his conviction by a jury on one count of tampering with a witness. We reverse.
As the result of certain events during an earlier trial (trial 1), Rubanowitz was charged by information with tampering with a witness in violation of § 18-8-605(1)(a), C.R.S.1973 (1978 Repl.Vol. 8). The charge resulted from a telephone conversation Rubanowitz held with one of the witnesses at trial 1. The People presented evidence to show that Rubanowitz had called the witness, during trial 1, and thanked her for testifying falsely at his urging on certain issues. When she expressed regret and indicated she was going to recant as to her testimony, Rubanowitz attempted to convince her to stick to her perjured testimony. Unbeknownst to Rubanowitz, the witness had already been confronted concerning her perjured testimony and Rubanowitz's conversation was being tape recorded.
At trial on the witness tampering charge, Jonathan Olom, Rubanowitz's attorney at trial 1, testified to Rubanowitz's reactions during the trial. He testified that they were in constant contact prior to the commencement of trial and during the five week trial. Olom testified that Rubanowitz appeared to him to become increasingly irrational and frustrated as the trial wore on. Rubanowitz was constantly interfering with the attorneys while they were preparing the case, and appeared incapable of understanding explanations regarding the trial. However, Olom was not permitted to give his opinion as to Rubanowitz's ability to form the specific intent required for witness tampering, and, consequently, the trial court refused Rubanowitz's tendered instructions on diminished mental capacity.
I.
Rubanowitz argues that the trial court erred in refusing to permit Olom to express his opinion, as a lay witness, on the question of whether Rubanowitz suffered from an impaired mental condition at the time of his alleged commission of the offense. We agree that such refusal was error.
Rubanowitz attempted to elicit Olom's opinion testimony pursuant to CRE 701. This rule sets out two threshold requirements before a lay witness can be permitted to give opinion testimony; it provides that:
"If the witness is not testifying as an expert, his testimony in the form of opinions or inferences is limited to those opinions or inferences which are (a) rationally based on the perception of the witness and (b) helpful to a clear understanding of his testimony or the determination of a fact in issue."
At trial, the court ruled that CRE 701(a) required, under these circumstances, that the witness establish that he has medical knowledge of abnormal mental states. This ruling was erroneous.
In United States v. Harris, 558 F.2d 366 (7th Cir.1977) the court held that Fed.R.Evid. 701 and 704 () permitted a judge to testify that, in his opinion, a defendant in a witness intimidation trial could form the requisite specific intent. The judge, who presided in the case in which the intimidation occurred, was allowed to testify that the defendant's demeanor "left the impression with me that he knew exactly what he was doing." The judge was not required to show any specific medical knowledge. Rather, it was held to be sufficient that he had been able to observe the defendant throughout the trial. In the case at bar, Olom had daily contact with the defendant and was able to observe the changes in the defendant's behavior over an extended period of time. If any lay witness...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Acosta
...cross-examination concerning the opinion's “limitations and any contrary indications.” Jones, 907 P.2d at 669 ; see People v. Rubanowitz, 673 P.2d 45, 47 (Colo.App.1983) (“Common experience strongly suggests that contemporaneous firsthand observation yields valuable impressions which cannot......
-
People v. Acosta
...to cross-examination concerning the opinion's “limitations and any contrary indications.” Jones, 907 P.2d at 669; see People v. Rubanowitz, 673 P.2d 45, 47 (Colo.App.1983) (“Common experience strongly suggests that contemporaneous firsthand observation yields valuable impressions which cann......
-
People v. Grant
...lay witness may testify to his or her opinion concerning a defendant's mental condition. See § 16-8-109, C.R.S.2006; People v. Rubanowitz, 673 P.2d 45, 46-47 (Colo.App.1983). However, to place the affirmative defense of insanity at issue and dispel the presumption of sanity, the evidence mu......
-
Farley v. People
...was appropriate, and did not constitute impermissible bolstering. 644 P.2d at 928 (citations omitted). See also People v. Rubanowitz, 673 P.2d 45 (Colo.App.1983) (the trial court erred in refusing to permit an attorney who represented the defendant at a previous trial to express his opinion......
-
Opinion Testimony
...of his testimony as to how the accident happened."). 14. 730 P.2d 293 (Colo. 1986). 15. Id. at 305. 16. People v. Rubanowitz, 673 P.2d 45, 47 (Colo.App. 1983), citing Louisell and Mueller, 3 Federal Evidence§ 376 (1979) at 625-26. 17. See, e.g., Town of Meeker v. Fairfield, 136 P. 471 (Colo......
-
Jonathan Olom - July 2006 - Four of the Greatest: a Tribute to Outstanding Lawyers in Colorado History
...conversation with Stan Marks in May 2006. 2. Thorpe v. Riveland, 617 F.Supp. 63 (D. Colo. 1985). 3. Id. at 65. 4. People v. Rubanowitz, 673 P.2d 45 (Colo. App. 1983). 5. Stroup v. People, 656 P.2d 680 (Colo. 1982). 6. Id. at 686 n.3. 7. People v. Stroup, 624 P.2d 913 (Colo.App. 1980). 8. St......
-
Rule 701: Admissibility of Opinion Testimony by Lay Witnesses
...843 P.2d 1378, 1383 (Colo. 1993). 2. Lombardi v. Graham, 794 P.2d 610, 613 (Colo. 1990) (citing C.R.E. 602). 3. People v. Rubanowitz, 673 P.2d 45, 47 (Colo.App. (internal quotations and ellipsis omitted). 4. Wise v. Hillman, 625 P.2d 364, 367 (Colo. 1981); Pyles-Knutzen v. Board of County C......
-
Opinion Testimony: Lay, Expert, or Something Else? - June 2008 - Criminal Law
...Rigot v. Conda, 304 P.2d 629 (Colo. 1956). 13. People v. Osborn, 599 P.2d 987 (Colo.App. 1979); CRS § 16-8-109. 14. People v. Rubanowitz, 673 P.2d 45 1983). 15. In re People in the Interest of Hill, 1198 P.2d 450 (Colo. 1948). 16. People v. Hoskay, 87 P.3d 194 (Colo.App. 2003). 17. People v......