Summary
The Supreme Court of Colorado held that Jose Pena forfeited his constitutional right to confront the victim by murdering her with the intent to prevent her from testifying. The court also held that the victim's out-of-court statements were admissible under applicable Colorado hearsay exceptions, including the child-victim, residual, and then-existing physical-condition exceptions. The court affirmed Pena's sexual-assault conviction.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Colorado should apply the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing doctrine to bar a defendant from asserting a Confrontation Clause objection when the defendant caused the witness's unavailability with the intent to deprive the criminal justice system of the witness's evidence.
- Whether application of forfeiture by wrongdoing requires proof of the defendant's intent to prevent the declarant from testifying at trial.
- Whether forfeiture of a Confrontation Clause objection independently bars the defendant from challenging the admissibility of the witness's statements under the hearsay rules.
- Whether the victim's statements were admissible under Colorado's child-victim hearsay statute, the residual hearsay exception, and the exception for statements describing a declarant's then-existing physical condition.
Holdings
- A defendant forfeits the right to confront a witness in all proceedings in which the witness's statements are otherwise admissible when the witness is unavailable, the defendant was involved in or responsible for procuring the witness's unavailability, and the defendant acted with the intent to deprive the criminal justice system of evidence.
- Forfeiture by wrongdoing bars a Confrontation Clause objection but does not automatically preclude a separate hearsay objection; the court must still determine whether the statements are admissible under the Rules of Evidence.
- The victim's statements describing the assault, her age, and Pena's age were admissible under section 13-25-129 because the trial court made sufficient findings regarding reliability and corroboration; forfeiture also eliminated any Confrontation Clause violation from admitting testimonial statements.
- The victim's statements identifying Pena as the perpetrator were admissible under Colorado Rule of Evidence 807.
- The victim's statement to a police officer that her wrists were sore from being held down was admissible under Colorado Rule of Evidence 803(3).
Key quotations
“where (1) a witness is unavailable; (2) the defendant was involved in, or responsible for, procuring the unavailability of the witness; and (3) the defendant acted with the intent to deprive the criminal justice system of evidence, the defendant then forfeits his right to confront the witness in all proceedings in which the witness's statements are otherwise admissible.” (173 P.3d at 1110-11)
“The forfeiture applies to confrontation rights under both federal and state constitutions.” (173 P.3d at 1111)
“We establish in Vasquez that once a court makes a determination of forfeiture by wrongdoing, the court must next examine the admissibility of the victim's hearsay statements according to the Rules of Evidence.” (173 P.3d at 1111)
Factual background
In August 1992, a young girl reported that Pena had forced her to engage in sexual intercourse, and she made related statements to police, family members, medical personnel, and an emergency-room doctor. A sexual-assault examination detected semen, and DNA testing matched the sample to Pena. After the sexual-assault charge was filed, the victim disappeared and was later found dead; Pena was subsequently convicted of her murder. At Pena's sexual-assault trial, the court admitted the victim's recorded police interview and testimony recounting her out-of-court statements.
Procedural history
Pena was charged with sexual assault on a child after the victim reported that he had forced her to engage in sexual intercourse. After the victim disappeared and was later found dead, Pena was convicted of her murder, and that conviction was affirmed. At the sexual-assault trial, the court admitted the victim's out-of-court statements over Pena's objections, and the jury convicted him. The Colorado Court of Appeals held that the murder-trial findings established forfeiture of Pena's confrontation rights and affirmed, but did not independently review the hearsay rulings. The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, relying on its contemporaneous decision in Vasquez v. People and independently determining that the challenged statements were admissible under applicable hearsay exceptions.