People v. Wood
2009 WL 3297507, 2009 Colo. App. LEXIS 1787, 230 P.3d 1223 (2009)
Rule of Law:
A pretrial order denying statutory 'make-my-day' immunity is not immediately appealable and becomes moot once the defendant asserts the defense at trial and a jury verdict is rendered; statements made by a defendant after a valid arrest under a warrant are admissible, even if the initial stop and frisk that led to the arrest were made without reasonable suspicion.
Facts:
- The victim and his girlfriend approached David Henry Wood and offered to sell him methamphetamine.
- Wood invited the victim and his girlfriend back to his apartment for the drug transaction.
- Inside the apartment, Wood discovered that the drugs offered by the victim were fake.
- Wood then shot and killed the victim.
- Police later obtained an arrest warrant for Wood after investigating the murder.
- Police received an anonymous tip that Wood was at a homeless shelter.
- At the shelter, police detained an unknown man, frisked him, and identified him as Wood using his photo ID.
- Wood made inculpatory statements while being transported to the police station after his arrest.
Procedural Posture:
- David Henry Wood was arrested and charged with first-degree murder.
- Wood filed a pretrial motion seeking an order of dismissal under the immunity provision of the 'make-my-day' statute in the trial court (court of first instance).
- The trial court denied Wood's request for pretrial immunity.
- Wood proceeded to trial, asserting both the make-my-day defense and self-defense.
- The jury rejected Wood's defenses and convicted him of manslaughter.
- Wood appealed the trial court's judgment of conviction to the Colorado Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a criminal defendant have the right to appeal a pretrial denial of statutory 'make-my-day' immunity before the trial concludes, or does such a ruling become unreviewable on appeal after a jury has rejected the defense at trial?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Russel
No, a criminal defendant does not have the right to appeal a pretrial denial of statutory 'make-my-day' immunity before the trial concludes, as such a ruling becomes unreviewable on appeal after a jury has rejected the defense at trial. The court reasoned that the 'make-my-day' statute does not explicitly authorize an appeal from a pretrial order denying immunity. The court analogized such orders to denials of dismissal at preliminary hearings or denials of summary judgment in civil cases, which are not considered final and become moot once the underlying issues are resolved by a fact-finder at trial. Thus, absent extraordinary relief, a defendant's only recourse is to raise the immunity issue as a defense at trial and, if unsuccessful, appeal the jury's verdict. The court affirmed the jury's verdict that Wood did not act under 'make-my-day' circumstances, finding sufficient evidence, specifically the girlfriend's testimony that Wood remained calm, supported the inference that Wood did not reasonably believe the victim would use force against him. Furthermore, the court held that Wood's inculpatory statements were admissible. Even assuming the police lacked reasonable suspicion for the initial stop and frisk, the arrest itself was valid due to the pre-existing arrest warrant. Statements made while in custody under a valid arrest warrant, even if following a potentially unlawful detention, are admissible as a product of the valid arrest, citing United States v. Hudson and New York v. Harris. Lastly, the court found no error in the exclusion of the victim's girlfriend's prior prostitution convictions for general impeachment purposes, noting they were not felonies and not probative of truthfulness under applicable rules, and any error would have been harmless as similar evidence was already before the jury. The court also found no abuse of discretion in denying a mistrial after the prosecutor's 'nice story' comment, as the trial court's immediate sustained objection and admonishment of the prosecutor were sufficient to remedy any prejudice.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the procedural pathway for challenging a denial of 'make-my-day' immunity in Colorado, establishing that such pretrial rulings are not immediately appealable and are mooted by a subsequent jury verdict on the defense. It underscores the judiciary's deference to legislative intent regarding appellate jurisdiction. Additionally, the ruling reinforces Fourth Amendment principles by distinguishing between evidence obtained during an unlawful stop (which might be suppressed) and statements made after a valid arrest pursuant to a warrant, affirming that a pre-existing warrant can validate an arrest even if the preceding detention was flawed. This distinction is crucial for law enforcement and legal practitioners dealing with issues of evidence suppression.
