Editor’s Note: Law Week Colorado edits court opinion summaries for style and, when necessary, length.
Jaime Gonzalez-Quezada appealed his second-degree murder conviction. The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. The appeals court concluded there was sufficient evidence for the jury to reject the statutory heat of passion sentence mitigator, that Gonzalez-Quezada’s right of confrontation was not violated and the trial court didn’t deny Gonzalez-Quezada his right to a public trial by excluding a disruptive observer from remotely viewing the trial.
Gonzalez-Quezada and his wife were married for five years. In October 2019, Gonzalez-Quezada’s wife moved out of the marital home and stayed with a friend while she considered how to move forward with the relationship. During this time, his wife met with the victim at a gym, who she was in an intimate relationship with, according to the opinion.
Gonzalez-Quezada was in the parking lot of the gym when the two met. Gonzalez-Quezada, witnessing their meeting, retrieved his pistol and fired at least one shot into the car. The victim exited the car and attempted to flee. Gonzalez-Quezada fired about five more shots, one of which struck the victim in the head and resulted in a fatal injury, according to the opinion.
The trial took place under COVID-19 protocols in May 2021 and was streamed on Webex. On day seven of the trial, the court disconnected a line participating on Webex because the observer repeatedly failed to mute their microphone and the noise was disrupting the testimony, according to the opinion.
The jury convicted Gonzalez-Quezada of second-degree murder and reckless endangerment.
On appeal, Gonzalez-Quezada contended the prosecution presented insufficient evidence to disprove the heat of passion mitigator. The appeals court disagreed. The court concluded a reasonable jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt the prosecution disproved the heat of passion mitigator and rejected Gonzalez-Quezada’s sufficiency challenge.
Gonzalez-Quezada also argued the trial court erred by allowing his wife to testify even though she planned to invoke her Fifth Amendment rights as they related to sexual assault charges pending against her and the trial court’s exclusion of extrinsic evidence identifying the victim of her alleged assault.
The court agreed with the prosecution’s argument that allowing Gonzalez-Quezada’s wife to testify knowing she would invoke her right to remain silent concerning the identity of the alleged victim did not deprive Gonzalez-Quezada of his right to confrontation.
The appeals court agreed with Gonzalez-Quezada’s assertion the trial court erred when it concluded Colorado Rule of Evidence 608 displaced the common law rule permitting the introduction of evidence through a third party witness that impeaches another testimony, and concluded the rule does not limit impeaching testimony which is elicited solely through the cross-examination of the witness whose testimony is being impeached.
However, the appeals court concluded Rule 403 precluded the admission of the evidence in question. The court found the trial court didn’t abuse its discretion by excluding such evidence, albeit on different grounds.
Gonzalez-Quezada also contended the trial court deprived him of his right to a public trial by excluding a disruptive observer from the Webex live stream of its proceedings. Specifically, Gonzalez-Quezada argued the exclusion constituted a partial closure of the courtroom, which required reversal.
The appeals court noted the record contained no indication the excluded observer was not permitted or able to travel to the courtroom to attend the trial in person and was not allowed to attend the trial. Because of this, the court concluded there was no closure of the courtroom, partial or otherwise.
The court also concluded, absent extraordinary circumstances not present in this case, if a courtroom remains open during the subject legal proceedings, the partial cessation of virtual proceedings does not amount to a closure of the courtroom for purposes of the constitutional right to a public trial.
The appeals court affirmed the judgment.
Judge Sueanna Johnson concurred, but didn’t agree on the path the majority took to arrive at its conclusion. Johnson wrote the court’s remarks about the observer’s continued misbehavior were sufficient to conclude the court didn’t abuse its discretion in the observer’s exclusion from the proceedings on Webex.
Thomas Seaman appealed the district court’s dismissal of his complaint against Heather Gardens Association. Seaman sought an injunction compelling Heather Gardens to make certain bank statements available to him for examination under the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act. The appeals court reversed the judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Seaman contended bank statements fall into one of the categories of records an association is required by statute to maintain and make available to him as a unit owner. The appeals court agreed bank statements may constitute such records, based on the language of the CCIOA.
The appeals court disagreed with the rationale the district court generally adopted when it dismissed Seaman’s complaint for three reasons.
First, to the extent bank statements are already included in one of the 18 categories of records an association is required to maintain by law, the legislature didn’t need to have separately listed them.
Second, the legislature exempted several types of records from mandatory disclosure but did not include an association’s bank statements among the exemptions. The legislature specifically exempted individual members’ bank account information from inspection and disclosure, but it did not do the same for an association’s bank account information. Based on this information, the appeals court concluded the legislature must not have intended those bank statements to be exempt.
Third, interpreting the CCIOA to include an association’s bank statements does not render any other category of record superfluous, according to the opinion.
The appeals court also rejected Heather Gardens’ argument that the CCIOA does not require an association to maintain or make available records created by an outside party, such as a bank.
The appeals court reversed the district court’s judgment and its order awarding attorney fees and costs to Heather Garden and remanded the case for further proceedings.