People v. Zapata, 88SC153

• Docket Nº: No. 88SC153
• Citation: 779 P.2d 1307
• Case Date: September 18, 1989
• Court: Supreme Court of Colorado

Page 1307

779 P.2d 1307 The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Petitioner,
v.
Toby E. ZAPATA, Respondent. No. 88SC153. Supreme Court of Colorado. Sept. 18, 1989.
As Modified on Denial of Rehearing Oct. 16, 1989.

Duane Woodard, Atty. Gen., Charles B. Howe, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen., Richard H. Forman, Sol. Gen., and Clement P. Engle, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for petitioner.

David F. Vela, State Public Defender, and Rachel A. Bellis, Deputy State Public Defender, Denver, for respondent.

Justice ERICKSON delivered the Opinion of the Court.

We granted certiorari to review the decision of the court of appeals in People v. Zapata, 759 P.2d 754 (Colo.App.1988), which affirmed the conviction of Toby E. Zapata (defendant) on two counts of first-degree sexual assault, two counts of second-degree burglary, and two counts of violent crime, but vacated the sentences imposed for burglary. On certiorari, the prosecution asserts that the invited error doctrine bars appellate review of error in a jury instruction, where the instruction was drafted and tendered by the defense. We conclude that it does, and although we affirm the court of appeals, we disagree with the reasoning in Part I of the opinion which would replace the invited error doctrine with a plain error analysis.

I.

In the late evening or early morning hours of October 13-14, 1983, J.E., a woman living with her two young children in Denver, was awakened by a man who entered her bedroom, and told her that if she screamed, he would kill her. She felt a sharp instrument pressed against her cheek or neck. When he spoke to her in his low voice, he referred to her as "lady." The assailant then undressed her and forced her to engage in vaginal intercourse. Before leaving, he told her not to call the police, that he would be watching, that he was not far away, and that he would be back. After he left, she found that the kitchen window was open, and that the screen was bent back. The police were called and found latent fingerprints around the kitchen screen. J.E. told the police that she had gotten a good enough look at her assailant to identify him, although she identified him as Caucasian. Samples taken from the victim's vagina and mouth at a hospital in the early morning after the attack were inconclusive as to her attacker's identity.

Early in the morning on June 1, 1984, J.E. was awakened by a man standing over her, and she realized that it was the same man that had assaulted her in October. He

Page 1308

again threatened to kill her if she screamed, and pressed a sharp instrument into her back, stating, "I told you I would be back." Referring to her as "lady," he told her that his brother was dead and she had caused his death. Undressing her, he forced her to engage in anal and vaginal intercourse. When he found no money in her purse, he became angry. Pressing the sharp instrument into her back, he said he was going to kill her, but apparently changed his mind and left. This time she noticed that he had a tattoo of a cross on the web between the thumb and forefinger. Tests of samples taken from the victim's vagina, anus, and mouth revealed the attacker to either have type "O" blood, or be a non-secreter. This time she described him as "Spanish" and as having a goatee or moustache.

On August 6, 1984, J.E. thought she saw the assailant at a gas station in Denver, and notified the police. Using information she gave them, a photographic lineup was conducted two weeks later, at which she identified a particular individual. However, his blood type was inconsistent with the sample taken on June 1, and he was eliminated as a suspect.

Acting on an informant's tip, and information obtained by computer, Denver police obtained an arrest warrant for Toby Zapata, the defendant. He was arrested at his residence, about eight blocks from where J.E. lived, on September 11, 1984. Defendant gave a videotaped statement after his arrest, confirming some, but not all, of the details of the two attacks on J.E. In addition, it was determined that his blood type was consistent with that of the assailant, as is that of 56% of the male population. A fingerprint expert testified at the trial that prints taken from the defendant matched the latent prints taken from the victim's screen on October 14, 1983. Finally, a photograph taken of the defendant's left hand on March 28, 1985, showed a cross.

II.

The defense at trial was that the victim had misidentified the defendant. The defendant's attorney submitted a number of instructions on the misidentification defense which were refused by the trial court. The defendant then presented Instruction No. 12 to the court, which is the pivotal issue on appeal. ¹ Instruction No. 12 was prepared solely by the defendant, and was accepted by the court without change.

On direct appeal, the defendant maintained that Instruction No. 12 misstated the burden of proof, allowing the jury to find the defendant guilty on a standard less than beyond a reasonable doubt. ² Because the instruction had been proposed by the defendant, the court of appeals recognized that the doctrine of invited error was applicable. However, in commenting on the invited error doctrine, the court of appeals, relying on People v. Mackey, 185 Colo. 24, 521 P.2d 910 (1974), stated:

The invited error doctrine has been stated as a rule of strict preclusion of review. However, the right to trial by jury is a fundamental constitutional right guaranteed in a criminal prosecution. The ultimate duty to instruct properly lies with the trial court under People v. Mackey, supra. Thus it is illogical to apply the invited error doctrine in a manner which strictly prohibits review of fundamentally erroneous instructions which result in manifest prejudice or unfairness.

Page 1309

Zapata, 759 P.2d at 756 (emphasis added). We disagree.

We have long followed the rule that a party may not complain on appeal of an error that he has invited or injected into the case; he must abide the consequences of his acts. People v. Collins, 730 P.2d 293 (Colo.1986); People v. Shackelford, 182 Colo. 48, 511 P.2d 19 (1973); Stilley v. People, 160 Colo. 329, 417 P.2d 494 (1966); Palmer v. Gleason, 154 Colo. 145, 389 P.2d 90 (1964); Gray v. People, 139 Colo. 583, 342 P.2d 627 (1959). ³

The invited error doctrine applies to jury instructions. Collins, 730 P.2d at 304-05; Gray, 139 Colo. at 588, 342 P.2d at 630. Recently, we said:

We have held that under the doctrine of "invited" error, a party may not complain where he has been the instrument for injecting error in the case; he is expected to abide the consequences of his acts. People v. Shackelford, 182 Colo. 48, 511 P.2d 19 (1973); see also United States v. Irwin, 654 F.2d 671 (10th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1016, 102 S.Ct. 1709, 72 L.Ed.2d 133 (1982). We hold that any error was error injected by the defendant as a matter of trial strategy, and the defendant may not now be heard to complain.

Collins, 730 P.2d at 304-05. Similarly, in Gray v. People, the defendant submitted an instruction which implied that he had committed "other offenses" than the one charged. On appeal, the defendant alleged error in the instruction, but we declined to consider it, stating:

While we do not approve of the language of the instruction, it appearing to label as a matter of law certain conduct of defendant as "other offenses," nevertheless it was given for the benefit of the defendant, having been tendered by defendant's counsel and strenuously resisted by the prosecuting attorney. It was finally given by the court upon the insistence of the defendant. In addition to the rule...