Denver DUI Attorney Blog

Colorado Requires all Adults Charged with a Felony to Submit DNA. Can it be Expunged?

Published on: April 8, 2017 | by Monte J. Robbins, Esq.

Colorado law requires all people arrested for any Felony offense to submit a DNA sample in relation to arrests on or after September 20, 2010. Felony offenses include those charged by complaint, information, and indictment. It even includes those not arrested who appear in court on a summons.

The law enforcement agency who completes the booking is responsible for the DNA collection process. If DNA is not collected through the booking process then the Court is required to order the defendant to submit to DNA collection through the investigating agency responsible for the fingerprints in the case.

Law enforcement officers are authorized to use reasonable force to collect a DNA sample and thereafter are required to submit the sample to the Colorado Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for testing. If a defendant’s DNA sample is already on file with CBI, then the law enforcement agency should not collect a new DNA sample.

Fortunately for those who’ve had their cases dismissed outright, have been found not guilty at trial, resolved their case to a Misdemeanor rather than a Felony offense, or were arrested but never charged, a process exists to expunge the collected DNA. The process goes through the CBI rather than the Colorado court system.

A written request must be submitted to the CBI including the following information: date of arrest, or other date when the DNA sample was collected, the person’s name, date of birth, and address, the police agency which collected the DNA, a listing of the charges filed, which court the case is in, the case number, and a declaration that the person’s case qualifies for expungement.

Thereafter, the CBI submits an inquiry to the district attorney’s office who prosecuted the case. Within 90 days after the CBI receives a request to expunge DNA, the CBI shall destroy the DNA and the results of the testing from both the state index system and the federal combined DNA index system unless the CBI receives notice from the district attorney’s office that the person does not qualify to have his/her DNA expunged.

Within 30 days after CBI receives notice from the district attorney’s office or at the end of the 90 day period referenced-above, whichever is earlier, CBI shall notify the person making the request that the DNA has been destroyed and the record expunged or why CBI didn’t destroy and expunge the records.

DNA evidence shall not be used against a person in a criminal case if the DNA was required to be destroyed and expunged or obtained after the deadline for destruction or expungement.

Ignition Interlock Requirements for 1st DUI Offenses in Colorado and Penalties for Driving Without Interlock.

Published on: April 7, 2017 | by Monte J. Robbins, Esq.

What are the requirements? Well that depends. Adult drivers age 21 and up who have been stopped for a DUI or DWAI offense in Colorado and have either submitted a chemical test of their blood or breath at .08 or higher, or, have refused a chemical test are subject to revocation of their driver’s license. Out of state residents who are stopped in Colorado are subject to the same revocation process and term as Colorado residents.

The revocation for a 1st offense per se revocation, blood or breath .08 or greater but less than .15, is 9 months. Colorado residents are eligible to reinstate early after 30 days of no driving with ignition interlock on their vehicle for 8 months. Early removal of the interlock device is possible after 4 months of 100% compliance. The specific language of the statute requires that the monthly monitoring reports reflect that the ignition interlock device did not prevent or interrupt the “normal operation” of the vehicle due to breath alcohol. Further, no tampering is evident, and no other reports of circumvention or tampering exist, and there are no other grounds to extend the interlock requirement. Thus, in light of full compliance with the interlock, the requirement can be whittled down to just 4 months.

The Department of Revenue will serve a driver with a notice of eligibility for early removal. If on the other hand, the driver has been compliant and has not received notice of early removal eligibility from the Department of Revenue, then the driver may request a hearing to determine eligibility by contacting the Hearings Division at 303-205-5606.

If the driver submits a blood or breath test result at .15 or greater or refuses a chemical test, the ignition interlock requirement lasts for 2 years following reinstatement. Colorado labels these drivers “persistent drunk drivers” by statute. Those who submit a chemical test .15 or greater are eligible for reinstatement as a Colorado resident after 30 days of no driving. Those who are found to refuse a chemical test are eligible after 60 days of no driving. There is no temporary or restricted driving privileges available for any drivers during the 30 day or 60 day period of “no driving”.

If a driver who has submitted a chemical test at .15 or greater or refused a chemical test decides not to reinstate his/her license early after 30 days or 60 days of no driving they must still reinstate with ignition interlock for 2 years once they decide to get back on the road again. Thus, there really is no benefit for a driver who has either refused or submitted a .15 or greater BAC to wait on the sidelines in the hopes of avoiding an ignition interlock requirement. If they ever want to get their license back in Colorado, thus must have 2 years of interlock.

Some drivers who cannot afford the full monthly cost of ignition interlock are eligible for financial assistance to help pay for the ignition interlock device. Information on this program may be obtained by contacting Driver Services at 303-205-5600.

Drivers who hold an ignition interlock restricted driver’s license must only drive a vehicle in which an approved ignition interlock machine is installed. This is sometimes difficult for drivers to adhere to. An example of a common violation is when a driver’s vehicle is in the shop for repairs and the driver “takes the wife’s car” to work and is stopped for not using a turn signal or other minor traffic infraction. Thereafter, DMV may revoke the driver’s ignition interlock license for failing to drive a vehicle equipped with interlock. The revocation will cause a driver to no be eligible to reinstate his/her license for one (1) year or the remaining period of license restraint imposed prior to driver obtaining the interlock license, whichever is longer. A driver subject to this type of sanction is eligible to request (and should request) a hearing to determine whether or not the license will be revoked and the length of time in which the driver is deemed to be ineligible to reinstate. Operating a vehicle not equipped with interlock (when the driver’s license requires an interlock equipped vehicle) is a Class 1 Misdemeanor Traffic Offense.

If a police officer stops a driver and thereafter determines that the driver is not driving a vehicle equipped with interlock (and is required to under the terms of their license), the police officer is required to confiscate the driver’s license, file an incident report on a special form provided by the Department of Revenue, and not permit the driver to continue to drive the vehicle not equipped with interlock.

Courts may not accept a plea of guilty to just any reduced traffic offense or infraction for a driver charged with circumventing interlock/driving without interlock. Courts may only accept a plea to another offense or infraction of the district attorney prosecuting the case is willing to state to the Court that he/she doesn’t have a prima facie case for the interlock offense charged.

Utah Governor Signs Bill to Lower BAC to .05. Will Colorado Follow?

Published on: March 29, 2017 | by Monte J. Robbins, Esq.

Governor Herbert in Utah just signed a bill to lower Utah’s BAC threshold for DUI offenses from .08 to .05. Utah will be the first state to lower their BAC to this level when the law takes effect in 2018. It’s noteworthy that Utah was also the first state to lower their BAC from .10 to .08. Thereafter, the rest of the country followed in their footsteps. It has been illegal to drive with a BAC of .08 or greater in all 50 states since 2002.

In Colorado, there is a permissible inference that someone is under the influence of alcohol if they submit a chemical test of their blood or breath at .08 or more. Similarly there is a permissible inference that a person is driving while ability impaired if they submit a chemical test of their blood or breath at .051 BAC up to .079 BAC. A driver is presumed that they are not under the influence and not impaired if they submit a chemical test of their blood or breath at .05 or less (although sometimes Colorado police officers still charge people with DUI and DWAI even if they submit testing at .05 or less).

Drivers charged with DUI or DWAI after submitting chemical testing reflecting a BAC of .05 or less have the “power of the statute” behind them. However, often times a DUI defense lawyer must “politely remind” a district attorney prosecuting this type of case as to what the statute reads CRS 42-4-1301.

Also in Colorado, if a person submits a chemical test of his blood yielding a result of 5 nanograms or more of delta 9-tetrahydrocannabinol per milliliter of whole blood there is a permissible inference that the person is under the influence of THC- Marijuana.

Thus, people may wonder if Colorado will follow along with Utah and lower their BAC threshold from .08 to .05.

According to an article by Amy Joi O’Donoghue of Desert News Utah, the Utah governor “pointed out that 85 percent of the world’s population currently lives in countries with laws that have .05 percent blood-alcohol limits or less, including France and Italy”.

Some countries even have stricter BAC limits. China and Colombia for instance have a BAC limit of .02. Whereas India, Japan, and Taiwan have a BAC limit of .03.

Only time will tell how Utah’s direction with this new BAC legislation will impact other states who may wish to follow in their footsteps.

New Simplified Process for Sealing a Dismissal in Colorado.

Published on: March 28, 2017 | by Monte J. Robbins, Esq.

As of August 10, 2016, Colorado criminal defendants who have had their cases completely dismissed can go through a quick, streamlined, and simple process to seal their criminal records pursuant to CRS 24-72-702.5. Dismissals under this statute relate to not only outright dismissals but also acquittals (not guilty at trial), a successfully completed deferred judgment, and a successfully completed diversion. Cases that were dismissed prior to August 10, 2016 are not eligible for the streamlined process. Cases that were dismissed prior to August 10, 2016 and are otherwise eligible for a record seal may be sealed under the standard record sealing process pursuant to CRS 24-72-702.

Juvenile records which qualify for an expungement are not eligible for the streamlined record sealing process referenced above. Juvenile records, if eligible, may be expunged pursuant to CRS 19-1-306. In Colorado, record “sealing” relates to adult criminal records, whereas “expungement” relates to juvenile records.

The simplified process permits a Colorado criminal defendant to make an oral motion in court to have their records sealed or subsequent to the dismissal by filing a later written motion with the Court. Under this simplified process, the Court shall grant the request. This saves the defendant from filing a separate civil action and paying the much higher fee to seal the records. It also saves the Colorado criminal defendant from the burden of showing that his interest in sealing the records outweighs the public’s interest. Plus, under this simplified process, the Court does much of the work for the defendant and provides a copy of the Order to Seal to each entity who may have records related to the dismissed action. The defendant may also provide the Order to Seal to additional entities under the Order.

There is a record sealing fee of $65 related to this simplified process (versus $224 under the standard process).

Colorado Ignition Interlock Violation Suspension Hearings

Published on: May 4, 2016 | by Monte J. Robbins, Esq.

Colorado law mandates that ignition interlock drivers are required to extend their ignition interlock lease agreements by a period of 12 months when it is reported by their ignition interlock provider that the ignition interlock device has prevented the operation of a motor vehicle in 3 of 12 consecutive reporting periods due to excessive alcohol. This information is downloaded by the ignition interlock provider and submitted to DMV when it appears that the threshold for a suspension has been met. Thus, it is critically important to always request a hearing regarding alleged ignition interlock violations.

The suspension process is initiated when DMV sends out a violation notice letter to a respondent indicating that the respondent is alleged to have violated the terms and conditions of the interlock device. A respondent must then either submit a new ignition interlock lease agreement (with a 12 month extension) by the deadline indicated in the letter. Or, the respondent must request a hearing on the matter. A respondent should never simply agree to the ignition interlock extension. A hearing should always be requested. At the hearing, the extension may be either rescinded, reduced, or sustained.

A violation must be shown to interrupt or prevent the normal operation of the vehicle in 3 of 12 consecutive reporting periods.

Rolling retests don’t count. Although an action may be triggered due to rolling retests, theses “fails” should not be upheld at an ignition interlock violation hearing. Why? Because they don’t fit the textbook definition of a fail.

The threshold alcohol detection level which triggers a fail is .025 BAC. This figure is set by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment in 5 CCR 1005-3 and is defined as the “setpoint value”.

Many interferents may cause this setpoint value to trigger a “fail” aside from a driver drinking alcohol. This is a false positive. Some known causes include mouthwash, windshield washer fluid, contaminants from orthodontics/oral appliances, spicy foods, energy drinks, sweets such as cookies and donuts, mouthspray, chewing tobacco, and many other reported interferents.

It is imperative in ignition interlock violation hearings that the complete interlock reports be acquired from the interlock company and investigated well in advance of the hearing. Often times due to the sheer number of interlock violation hearings being held the reports are sent out by DMV only a few days in advance of the hearing. This shortens the time period the respondent has to investigate the reports and prepare for the hearing. The ignition interlock reports tell a very detailed story of the history of the use of the machine and are vital in defense preparation.

Winning a DUI Refusal Revocation because of Miranda.

Published on: April 15, 2016 | by Monte J. Robbins, Esq.

The burden of proof at an Express Consent Revocation Hearing in a Colorado DUI case is a preponderance of the evidence. In order to sustain a refusal revocation, the police must show that the respondent was driving or in actual physical control of a motor vehicle (a commercial vehicle also applies) in Colorado on the date alleged. Secondly, the police must show that they had probable cause to believe that the respondent’s ability to drive was impaired even to this slightest degree and that they requested that the respondent complete a chemical test. Finally, the police must show that respondent refused to take, complete, or cooperate in the completion of a chemical test of respondent’s blood, breath, saliva, or urine such that the test could be obtained within two (2) hours of driving.

According to the case law a respondent may not refuse a chemical test simply because the police officer requested the test more than two (2) hours after driving. A reasonable time after driving is sufficient as long as the time is not so remote that it diminishes the evidentiary value of the test.

An Express Consent Revocation Hearing is independent from the DUI criminal case. As such, often times when a driver is arrested for DUI, he will have two (2) cases pending. The first is the Express Consent Revocation Hearing (administrative hearing) regarding his driver’s license through the Department of Revenue. The second case is a criminal DUI case in the county where the action occurred.

Many people are familiar with the Miranda warnings of the police from watching crime television shows or movies. The warnings encompass the following rights of a defendant: 1) the right to remain silent; 2) anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law; 3) you have the right to an attorney; 4) if you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you. Police officers often advise a defendant of these rights upon arrest.

A problem can arise for the police when they advise a defendant of his Miranda rights before a request to take a blood or breath test.

Specifically, if a defendant is 1) read his Miranda rights; 2) chooses to remain silent and requests a lawyer; 3) the police give the defendant an Express Consent Advisement; 4) the defendant refuses the test because he wants a lawyer; and 5) the police do nothing to alleviate the confusion that they caused.

This scenario appeared in the Calvert case. In Calvert, a Denver Police Officer observed Mr. Calvert drive his car in an erratic fashion. Thereafter, the officer observed a strong odor of alcohol and staggering while Mr. Calvert walked. He was arrested for DUI. Calvert was subsequently read his Miranda rights and he requested to call his lawyer. However, the officer refused to let him call his lawyer.

The Denver officer then handed Calvert a form regarding Colorado Express Consent (previously “implied consent”) and asked him to sign it. Calvert refused to sign until he consulted with his lawyer (as you will recall the officer previously told him that he was entitled to a lawyer). The police officer alleged that he refused a chemical test and the hearing officer at his driver’s license revocation hearing agreed.

Calvert appealed and won. The Court found that Calvert was advised of Miranda, requested to speak with his lawyer, and was not advised that he didn’t have a right to speak with his lawyer regarding completing a chemical test. Therefore Calvert was not held responsible for the refusal because the police failed to advise him that the right to remain silent did not include the right to refuse to submit to the test or the right to consult with a lawyer.

Thus the essential elements for a respondent to potentially avoid a driver’s license revocation sanction after Miranda are the following: a Miranda advisement, request to speak to a lawyer, confusion caused by the police about the right to a lawyer, and a failure of the police to clear up the confusion.

If your alleged refusal contains those elements mentioned above you may have a shot at keeping your driver’s license.

Marijuana and Probation in Colorado

Published on: April 12, 2016 | by Monte J. Robbins, Esq.

Colorado statute 18-1.3-204 provides that medical Marijuana users shall not be prohibited from possessing or using medical Marijuana while on probation. It appears that this is welcome news for medical Marijuana users. However, a closer look at the statute reflects two major exceptions to this groundbreaking law. One of the exceptions provides enormous discretion to the Court to rule against a probationer’s use of medical Marijuana on probation.

The first exception to the law that permits medical Marijuana use on probation applies to those who are sentenced to probation for a conviction under article 43.3 of title 12, also known as the Medical Marijuana Code.

The second exception to the law that permits medical Marijuana use on probation applies to probationers when the Court determines that based on the assessment in Colorado statute 18-1.3-209 a prohibition against the possession or use of marijuana is “necessary and appropriate to accomplish the goals of sentencing” as stated in Colorado statue 18-1-102.5. This exception grants wide latitude to the Court (and the probation department through their assessment) in determining who ultimately can and cannot use Marijuana on probation.

The assessment referenced above (18-1.3.209) is a substance abuse assessment. Persons convicted of a petty offense or misdemeanor on or after July 1, 2008 or a felony on or after July 1, 1992 that are sentenced to supervised probation (or a deferred judgment) are required to complete a substance abuse evaluation for alcohol or drugs.

The Court shall order probationers to comply with the recommendations outlined in the alcohol and drug assessment. If the person is sentenced to supervised probation (or a deferred judgment and sentence), or any other sentence (except straight jail time without probation), the probationer shall be required to comply with the treatment plan as a condition of the sentence. The probationer is required to pay for the evaluation and treatment recommended unless he or she is indigent.

The goals of sentencing as referenced above include those as outlined in Colorado statute 18-1-102.5. The first goal of sentencing is to punish the defendant for his/her offense based upon the seriousness of the offense. Fair and consistent treatment of all offenders is to be considered with the goal of eliminating unjustified disparity in sentences. Fair warning of the nature of the sentence to be imposed and fair procedures for the imposition of the sentence are also to be considered.

Further goals of sentencing in light of Colorado statute 18-1-102.5 also include deterrence and rehabilitation of offenders through cooperation and participation in correctional programs. The Court should also consider a sentence, sentence length, and level of supervision in light of the person’s individual characteristics that will reduce the probability that the person will re-offend.

Promotion of acceptance of responsibility and accountability, restoration and healing of victims and the community, and reducing recidivism and costs to society through restorative justice practices are also factors for the Court to consider.

Thus, the bottom line of this fairly new legislation that permits medical Marijuana use on probation appears to be that medical Marijuana patients may be permitted continued use, but only if the Court and probation agree and the probationer is not sentenced for committing an offense defined under the Medical Marijuana Code.

Colorado’s Felony DUI Law – 4th Offense is Now a Felony

Published on: April 5, 2016 | by Monte J. Robbins, Esq.

Colorado’s Felony DUI law is relatively new and went into effect on August 5, 2015. In Colorado, driving under the influence (DUI), driving under the influence per se (DUI per se) and driving while ability impaired (DWAI) offenses are misdemeanors. However, under the new law, a fourth offense (of DUI, DUI per se, or DWAI) is now a Class 4 Felony if the current offense occurred after three or more prior convictions arising out of separate cases for DUI, DUI per se, vehicular homicide, DWAI, or vehicular assault. These five offenses are considered “priors” if they are convictions under the laws of Colorado, the U.S., any state in the U.S., and any territory under the jurisdiction of the U.S.

Some previous offenses do not result in convictions. Thus if a person is facing a potential Felony DUI, it’s critical to determine whether or not a previous offense actually resulted in a “conviction”. An example of a DUI charge not resulting in a conviction would be a case that was dismissed. Another example of a DUI charge that does not result in a conviction would be a successfully completed deferred judgment and sentence. Under a deferred judgment and sentence a guilty plea to a charge enters, however if the defendant complies 100% with the terms and conditions of the deferred and successfully completes it then the plea is withdrawn and the case is dismissed. An additional example of a DUI charge not resulting in a conviction is through the trial process whereby a defendant is found not guilty. Thus, every case that is charged as a DUI or DWAI under Colorado law or the laws of another state does not necessarily result in a conviction.

The punishment for a Class 4 Felony DUI is 2-6 years in prison (exceptional circumstances may lower this presumptive range to 1 year or increase the range to 12 years) if incarceration is the most suitable option in light of the facts of the case. A fine of $2000 to $500,000 may also be imposed. A defendant will also be subject to 3 years of mandatory parole. By law, the Court must consider the defendant’s willingness to participate in treatment, whether all reasonable and appropriate sanctions have been exhausted, do not appear likely to be successful, or there is an unacceptable risk to public safety. Thus, in light of the provisions of the new law a defendant may avoid prison time, however the discretion is left in the hands of the Court.

Clearly multiple offense DUIs in Colorado are extremely serious.

Tips for avoiding a holiday DUI in Colorado.

Published on: October 16, 2013 | by Monte J. Robbins, Esq.

As the holidays are quickly approaching, police agencies are out in full force looking for impaired drivers. Colorado law enforcement agencies typically expect more motorists to be on the road traveling to grandma’s house, meeting up with friends, or perhaps attending an office party or other holiday party. It’s important that drivers in Colorado take precautionary measures to avoid driving under the influence. The following is a list of tips that I have gathered during my experience defending many drivers in Colorado accused of driving under the influence.

Tip 1. Don’t drink and drive. In fact, don’t drink any alcohol and then drive. Don’t rely upon the “system” to avoid a DUI. The DUI prosecution system is not designed to protect you. Officers can come to the wrong conclusion about who is DUI and who is not. Portable breath tests, Intoxilyzer machines, and Blood tests can give erroneous results. Often times the people conducting these tests don’t conduct the tests correctly. People make mistakes and machines are not infallible. In Colorado, you can be charged with a DUI with any trace amount of alcohol in your system. Thus, it’s best not to put yourself in that position.

Tip 2. If you decide to sleep it off and spend the night in your car on the side of the road, think again. You’re better off spending a few bucks and staying at a motel. A DUI will cost you much more than one night’s stay at a motel. In Colorado, you can be charged with a DUI if you’re sleeping it off in your car, thus it’s not worth the risk.

Tip 3. Take a cab. A cab ride is cheaper than a DUI. Store taxi cab numbers in your cell phone or information for RTD routes and times from your location.

Tip 4. Have a designated driver that doesn’t drink any alcohol. A designated driver doesn’t do anyone any good if he or she starts drinking. If a designated driver starts drinking as well, it’s best to have a back-up plan such as taking a cab or calling a sober friend.

Tip 5. Call a sober friend for a ride.

Tip 6. If you insist on drinking and then driving, know that you’re playing Russian Roulette regardless of how much you’ve had to drink. Eat enough food and hearty food to have a full stomach. These foods slow down the absorption rate in your stomach.

Tip 7. Avoid carbonated mixers and sparkling wines. These drinks speed the absorption of alcohol.

Tip 8. Check your car to make sure everything is in working order. Especially check all lights including license plate light bulbs and brake lights. Headlamp, tail lamp, valid registration stickers, and turn signal functions should also be checked. Take the plastic clear or smoke covers off your license plates! Many DUI cases start with something simple as a “license plate bulb out”.

Tip 9. If you drive, pay attention to all highway regulation signs. Drive the speed limit. Not over, not under. Use your turn signal. Dim your high beams. Stop at stop signs. Don’t weave between the lines.

Tip 10.Have your driver’s license, registration, and insurance documents readily available and current. Don’t fumble around in your car to find them. Know where they are and be able to confidently access them in the event you get stopped. Fumbling around trying to find documents can be an indicia of impairment.

Tip 11.Avoid DUI checkpoints. Search online and in the newspaper to find out where the DUI checkpoints will be before you go out.

Tip 12.Stay off your cell phone when driving. It’s a distraction. Leave the radio tuned where it is.

Tip 13. Wear your seatbelt for obvious reasons.

Tip 14. Don’t rely upon “one drink per hour and I’m ok” rule. Unfortunately, I’ve had many clients who have relied upon this rule and have ended up with a DUI. How the body processes alcohol is a little more complex than just one drink per hour. It depends upon a number of factors including, food in the stomach, body weight, hydration, gender, the strength of the drink, etc.

Tip 15. Driving to locations close to your home doesn’t ensure that you’ll escape a DUI. Here again, I’ve had many clients who have been stopped close to their home and some even as they are turning into their driveway and charged with DUI. Law enforcement in Colorado won’t give you a “pass” simply because you are “almost home” or your house is “right around the corner”.

Tip 16. If you get a DUI, get a lawyer to represent you that has experience defending clients accused of DUI. Shy away from lawyers who handle every type of case under the sun such as “divorces, wills, personal injury, workers comp….and DUI cases”. Look for lawyers who dedicate a significant portion of their practice to DUI defense. DUI defense is a complicated area. Make sure the lawyer answers all your questions, that you are comfortable with the lawyer, and can effectively communicate with him about your goals regarding the case.

It’s important to remember that the penalties in Colorado for drinking and driving are severe. DUI drivers face jail time, loss of driver’s license, and many collateral consequences as a result of a DUI charge. A little common sense and planning can go a long way towards a safe and happy holiday season.
Continue Reading ›

Colorado Supreme Court says ok for cops to comment on witness’s credibility during interview.

Published on: September 18, 2013 | by Monte J. Robbins, Esq.

In a recent Colorado Supreme Court case, Davis v. People, Supreme Court Case No. 10SC460, the Court held that:

“[L]aw enforcement officials may testify about their perception of a witness’s credibility during an investigative interview. We hold that such testimony is admissible when it is offered to provide context for the detectives’ interrogation tactics and investigative decisions.”

A witness typically cannot comment on the credibility of another witness. And it is up to the jury to decide which witnesses should or should not be believed. In other words, credibility issues are for the jury.

In Davis v. People, a detective had commented in trial that he didn’t believe a witness he was interviewing and that the “interview” started out conversational and then transitioned into confrontational. The defense attorney objected on the basis that a witness can’t comment on the credibility of another witness. This objection was overruled by the court. The detective witness was essentially given permission to comment on the credibility of another witness to show how and why the “interview” proceeded as it did. The court found this evidence was admissible to show the context for the detectives interrogation tactics and investigative decisions.

Some of the line of questioning objected to by the defense at trial was as follows:

“Q: Now in the early part of that interview when it was less confrontational . . . . was [she] giving you information about the shooting?
A: Not really, no.
Q: All right, and is that one of the reasons why the interview got confrontational?
A: It did.
Q: Can you explain to the jury why it happened that way?
A: Well, I know I didn’t believe and I guess I can–”

The trial court further allowed the following line of questioning:

“Q: Is that one of the techniques you used with [E.W.] as well?
A: It is.
Q: To be candid, in your opinion at the time was it your assessment that she did perhaps have some level of involvement?
A: Yes.
Q: All right, and so after – did you let it be known to [E.W.] that you asked whether she was telling the truth?
A: Yes.
Q: And did you let [E.W] know that you still suspected her of having greater involvement in the crime than she was admitting to?
A: Yes.
Q: All right, and is that sort of at the point where the interview got more confrontational?
A: Yes.
Q: And after the interview got more confrontational, did the information that [E.W.] gave you change?
A: Yes.
Q: And did she give you some information that you were able to subsequently use in the investigation of this case?
A: Yes, she did.”

It’s important to note that under the Colorado Rules of Evidence, CRE404(a), “[e]vidence of a person’s character or a trait of his character is not admissible for the purpose of proving that he acted in conformity therewith on a particular occasion.” And CRE 608(a) permits evidence of a witness’s character for truthfulness or untruthfulness to be admitted after that character has been attacked. However, the Court clearly found the evidence admissible in this case limited context of an investigative interview.

The Colorado Supreme Court seems to draw a distinction in the Davis v. People case in finding that the detective testifying in the case was not commenting on the veracity of the testimony of the witness at trial. Instead, the detective was commenting on the veracity of the witness during the interviews prior to trial:

“The detectives’ answers referred not to the credibility of the witnesses’ in-court testimony, which determination undoubtedly falls within the jury’s purview, but rather to the detectives’ assessments of the interviewees’ credibility during the interviews conducted prior to trial…[f]or these reasons, we conclude that the detectives’ testimony did not constitute an improper credibility opinion under these circumstances.”
Continue Reading ›