Colorado Supreme Court Opinions

April 23, 2019

2019 CO 26. No. 15SC1096. Bondsteel v. People.

Renewal of Motions—Preservation of Objections—Joinder—Cross-Admissibility of Evidence.

In this case, the Supreme Court considered whether a criminal defendant’s failure to renew at trial a pretrial objection to the prosecution’s motion to join two separately filed cases waives the defendant’s ability to challenge such joinder on appeal and, if not, whether the cases were properly joined here.

The Court concluded that, to the extent People v. Barker, 501 P.2d 1041 (Colo. 1972), and People v. Aalbu, 696 P.2d 796 (Colo. 1985), required a defendant to renew at trial a pretrial objection to joinder or motion to sever, those cases are no longer good law because the renewal obligation they espoused is inconsistent with the current rules of criminal procedure. Thus, Bondsteel properly preserved his objection to the joinder of the two cases filed against him.

Turning to the merits, the Court concluded that the trial court properly exercised its discretion in joining the cases at issue because the record supports the court’s findings that the joinder of the two cases satisfied the requirements of Crim. P. 8(a)(2) and 13 and the joinder did not prejudice defendant.

Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed.

Read More..

2019 CO 27. No. 18SC18. Buell v. People.

Joinder—Cross-Admissibility of Evidence.

This case required the Supreme Court to consider whether the trial court abused its discretion in consolidating two separate shoplifting cases filed against defendant. In defendant’s view, proper consolidation requires the evidence of each incident to be admissible in a separate trial of the other. The Court concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion here.

As an initial matter, the Court rejected defendant’s contention that consolidation always requires the evidence of the respective incidents to be cross-admissible were there to be separate trials. To the contrary, when the cases are of the “same or similar character,” consolidation is proper regardless of whether the evidence would be cross-admissible in separate trials.

Proceeding to the merits, the Court concluded that the cases were of the same or similar character because the facts of the respective cases closely mirrored one another. Moreover, defendant had not shown that the consolidation was prejudicial because (1) the evidence would, in fact, have been cross-admissible in separate trials; and (2) the facts of the incidents at issue were not disputed. Rather, defendant contested only the application of law to those facts.

Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed.

Read More..