People v. Zubiate
Decision Date | 09 May 2013 |
Docket Number | Court of Appeals No. 11CA1939 |
Citation | 411 P.3d 757 |
Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Vanessa Ann ZUBIATE, Defendant–Appellant. |
Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
John W. Suthers, Attorney General, Joseph G. Michaels, Assistant Attorney General, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff–Appellee.
Douglas K. Wilson, Colorado State Public Defender, Andrea Gammell, Deputy State Public Defender, Natalie Schnall, Deputy State Public Defender, Denver, Colorado, for Defendant–Appellant.
Opinion by JUDGE HAWTHORNE
¶ 1 Defendant, Vanessa Ann Zubiate, appeals her convictions entered following a jury trial for aggravated driving after revocation prohibited (aggravated DARP) and driving while ability impaired (DWAI). She also appeals her driving under restraint (DUR) conviction entered following her guilty plea to that offense, and the sentence imposed. We affirm.
¶ 2 Shortly after midnight on October 2, 2010, Officer Tom Rayside observed a car make a wide right turn in a residential area and began following it. The car made another right turn without signaling until after the turn had been completed, and the driver pulled over and stopped. No one exited the car for ten to fifteen seconds, and Officer Rayside approached it.
¶ 3 Defendant, the driver, was with two passengers. Officer Rayside smelled alcohol and marijuana in the vehicle. He asked defendant if she had been drinking, and she responded that she had a few drinks and had smoked marijuana earlier. She agreed to perform several roadside sobriety tests, which Officer Rayside determined were performed unsatisfactorily. He arrested her for suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, advised her of Colorado's express consent statute1 , and informed her that she could refuse a chemical test or be taken to a local hospital to have blood drawn for a chemical test. According to Officer Rayside's police report, defendant "stated that she did not like needles and wanted to refuse a chemical test."2 Defendant was charged with aggravated DARP, driving under the influence (DUI), DUR, failing to provide proof of insurance, and failing to signal a turn.
¶ 4 Before her first trial, defendant pled guilty to DUR and stipulated to the aggravated DARP elements establishing her habitual offender status, her knowledge of that status, and her revocation.
¶ 5 During the first trial, Officer Rayside testified that defendant told him that she was afraid of needles and refused to take a chemical test. Defendant's theory of defense was that she was afraid of needles and had refused the chemical test for that reason, not because she was intoxicated. To support this theory, her friend, H.W., testified that defendant had refused pain medication during childbirth and when she broke her arm because she was afraid of needles.
¶ 6 The first jury found defendant guilty of failing to provide proof of insurance and failing to signal. The trial court declared a mistrial on the DARP and DUI charges because the jury was unable to reach a verdict.
¶ 7 Defendant was retried on the DARP and DUI charges. During the second trial, defendant again maintained that she had refused the chemical test because she was afraid of needles and not because she was intoxicated. However, during defense counsel's cross-examination of Officer Rayside, the prosecution moved to preclude the defense from eliciting testimony about defendant's statement concerning her fear of needles on the basis that it was inadmissible hearsay. The trial court agreed, sustained the prosecution's objection, and precluded defense counsel from questioning Officer Rayside about whether defendant had stated that she was afraid of needles. Defendant was convicted of aggravated DARP and DWAI, a lesser included offense of DUI.
¶ 8 This appeal followed.
¶ 9 Defendant contends that the trial court erred in excluding an out-of-court statement concerning her fear of needles, and, consequently, deprived her of her constitutional right to present evidence in her own defense. We disagree.
¶ 10 Few rights are more fundamental than the accused's right to present evidence that might influence the jury's determination of guilt. People v. Richards, 795 P.2d 1343, 1345 (Colo.App.1989). However, the right to present a defense is not absolute; it requires only that the accused be permitted to introduce all relevant and admissible evidence. People v. Harris, 43 P.3d 221, 227 (Colo.2002) ; see Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400, 410, 108 S.Ct. 646, 98 L.Ed.2d 798 (1988) ().
¶ 11 We review a trial court's evidentiary ruling for an abuse of discretion. People v. Ibarra, 849 P.2d 33, 38 (Colo.1993). A trial court abuses its discretion when its ruling is (1) manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable, or unfair or (2) based on an erroneous understanding or application of the law. People v. Casias, 2012 COA 117, ¶17, 312 P.3d 208.
¶ 12 Hearsay is "a statement other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted." CRE 801(c) ; see People v. Huckleberry, 768 P.2d 1235, 1241 (Colo.1989). Hearsay is inadmissible unless it falls within an exception to the rule against hearsay. CRE 802. "The rule against hearsay exists because ‘[h]earsay statements are presumptively unreliable since the declarant is not present to explain the statement in context.’ " People v. Newton, 966 P.2d 563, 572 (Colo.1998) (quoting Blecha v. People, 962 P.2d 931, 937 (Colo.1998) ).
¶ 13 Defendant argues that the court erred in excluding her statement to Officer Rayside concerning her fear of needles because it was (1) offered for a nonhearsay purpose, (2) a statement against interest, and (3) a statement concerning her state of mind. We address these arguments in turn.
¶ 14 Defendant argues that her statement was admissible for the nonhearsay purpose of providing context for her actions. We are not persuaded.
¶ 15 A relevant out-of-court statement not offered for its truth is admissible as nonhearsay evidence. People v. Scearce, 87 P.3d 228, 233 (Colo.App.2003) ; see People v. Welsh, 176 P.3d 781, 790 (Colo.App.2007) ( ).
¶ 16 Here, the statement was only relevant if it was offered for the truth of the matter asserted, namely, that defendant feared needles. Accordingly, it was hearsay. See CRE 801(c). Because the statement is hearsay, an exception must apply for it to be admissible. See People v. Czemerynski, 786 P.2d 1100, 1107 (Colo.1990) ( ).
¶ 17 Defendant argues that her statement was admissible as a statement against interest. We disagree.
¶ 19 Relying on People v. Newton, defendant maintains that her statement concerning needles was admissible as a collaterally neutral statement related to a statement against interest. 966 P.2d at 578 ( ). We are not persuaded.
¶ 20 Here, defendant's refusal to submit to the chemical test exposed her to criminal liability. See § 42–4–1301(6)(d), C.R.S.2012 (). However, her statement that she feared needles was so self-serving that it was inherently unreliable because it suggested that she had refused the chemical test because of her fear of needles and not because the test would have confirmed that she was intoxicated. See Newton, 966 P.2d at 566 ( ). Thus, defendant's statement about fearing needles was so self-serving as to be unreliable, not collaterally neutral. Therefore, it was inadmissible. Id. ( ); see also People v. Atkins, 844 P.2d 1196, 1203 (Colo.App.1992) (, )abrogated on...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Abu-Nantambu-El
...to address defendant's argument that the statements did not constitute self-serving hearsay. See People v. Zubiate , 2013 COA 69, ¶ 27, 411 P.3d 757 (Even if a hearsay statement is admissible under an exception it "may be excluded [as self-serving] because there is nothing to guarantee [its......
-
People v. Short
...a defendant may be excluded because there is nothing to guarantee their trustworthiness."); accord People v. Zubiate , 2013 COA 69, ¶ 33, 411 P.3d 757 (stating, in dicta, "[s]elf-serving hearsay declarations made by a defendant may be excluded under the rule of completeness because there is......
-
People v. Friend, Court of Appeals No. 09CA2536
...and, therefore, we review Friend's unpreserved double jeopardy claims for plain error. See, e.g., People v. Zubiate, 2013 COA 69, ¶ 38, 411 P.3d 757 (cert. granted June 16, 2014); People v. Flowers, 128 P.3d 285, 290 (Colo.App.2005).1 To constitute plain error, error must (1) be obvious, (2......
-
People v. Fortson
...trial court’s decision constituted plain error because the error would not have been obvious."); People v. Zubiate , 2013 COA 69, ¶ 24, 411 P.3d 757 ("An error may be obvious if the issue has been decided by a division of this court or the Colorado Supreme Court, or if the trial court has e......