The justices may also intervene in a cold-case murder prosecution out of Boulder County in which the trial judge believed prosecutors misunderstood his ruling
Source: Coloradopolitics.com
USA – COLORADO – The Colorado Supreme Court announced on Monday that it will review whether evidence of a defendant’s recent plans for BDSM activity with his alleged victim was relevant to his theory that he did not intend to cause serious bodily injury.
At least three of the court’s seven members must agree to take up a case on appeal.
The justices also took noteworthy action in two other cases that raised questions about the evidence at trial. In one instance, the Supreme Court signaled it may intervene in an ongoing cold-case murder prosecution in which the district attorney’s office is contesting potential evidence of the defendant’s autism spectrum disorder.
In the other instance, a defendant’s appeal about the allegedly improper mention of his prior criminal proceedings fell just short of the Supreme Court’s threshold for review.
Evidence of planned encounter
Douglas County jurors found Donald Louis Gerle guilty on two counts of assault and one charge of false imprisonment in 2022. In the prosecution’s telling, Gerle began beating his alleged victim following an argument, confined her in a closet over two days, forced her to use drugs and continued to assault her. There was no dispute the victim suffered multiple injuries as a result.
However, Gerle sought to show he lacked the intent to commit a crime because he and the victim had extensively talked about bondage activity. Therefore, Gerle may have believed he had the victim’s consent to the encounter, if not to her eventual injuries.
Then-District Court Judge Patricia Herron blocked Gerle from talking about the history of role-play between him and the victim, and from cross-examining the victim about the subject. Primarily, Herron believed the evidence was precluded by Colorado’s “rape shield” law, which generally prevents exploration of a crime victim’s sexual history.
That was incorrect, determined a three-judge Court of Appeals panel. Further, Herron incorrectly barred text message evidence of Gerle and the victim recently talking about BDSM role-playing, which again could have illustrated Gerle inflicted injuries recklessly, but not intentionally.
“Thus, evidence that the couple had previously participated in BDSM role-playing encounters and had just planned another such encounter makes it more probable that the victim consented to at least some of the conduct and makes it less likely that Gerle had the requisite intent,” wrote Judge Christina F. Gomez.
The government appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing there was no evidence Gerle and the victim were “engaging in a consensually sexual encounter.” Therefore, the Court of Appeals’ decision would allow jurors to find the “violent assault” stemmed from the victim’s prior support for having force used on her.
The excluded text message evidence “describes specifically and directly the parties’ consensual plans for BDSM activities during the charged time period in this case,” countered attorney Brian M. Close for Gerle, and was directly relevant to his intent.
The Supreme Court agreed to review the Court of Appeals’ conclusion about the relevance of the evidence.
Autism evidence
Boulder County prosecutors originally charged John Michael Angerer in 2010 with the murder of Angela Wilds in South St. Vrain Canyon several years before. However, there was not probable cause to bring him to trial.
After further investigation, a grand jury again indicted Angerer for Wilds’ murder in 2023. The defense hired an expert to psychologically examine Angerer and she diagnosed him with autism spectrum disorder. Shortly before trial in May, the defense listed the expert as a witness who could testify about autism.
The prosecution objected, arguing the “mental condition” evidence did not go through the process outlined in Colorado law. On June 2, District Court Judge Andrew Hartman ruled on the issue, and the prosecution believed he permitted jurors to hear about Angerer’s autism diagnosis as an explanation for Angerer’s suspicious behavior when interacting with law enforcement.
The district attorney’s office quickly filed a motion to reconsider. After Hartman did not immediately act, the prosecution asked the Supreme Court to step in.
The autism diagnosis “is expert opinion evidence concerning Defendant’s mental condition, and admissible only if Defendant had complied with (the law) — which he indisputably has not. It is therefore error for the district court to consider allowing such evidence,” wrote Senior Deputy District Attorney Ryan Day.
Unusually, Hartman quickly issued an order accusing the prosecution of failing to “accurately recite the court’s ruling.” He also published a second written order clarifying he was, in fact, excluding Angerer’s autism diagnosis from trial.
“However, should considerable testimony at trial by law enforcement regarding Defendant’s eye contact, lowered tone, or other behaviors during the interviews arise and be used to establish Defendant’s dishonesty,” Hartman elaborated, “the Court may reconsider whether this implicates Defendant’s rights to a fair trial such that limited expert testimony by (the expert witness) to rebut such inferences may be appropriate.”
Day followed up with the Supreme Court, arguing Hartman’s clarification still amounted to a misunderstanding of the law and reiterating the need for the court’s intervention.
The Supreme Court directed Hartman and Angerer to respond to the petition.
The case is People v. Angerer.
Witness triggers evidence of defendant’s other misconduct
Morgan County jurors convicted Noe Maniz on two counts of assault, based on the serious injuries his victim received in their hotel room. Prior to trial, the victim said Maniz had hit her. At trial, however, the victim said her injuries occurred through rough, consensual sex.
Chief Judge Carl S. McGuire III told the prosecution before trial it could only introduce evidence of Maniz’s prior domestic violence case with the same victim, in which Maniz was acquitted, if the victim testified inconsistently with her prior statements.
After the victim testified that the district attorney’s office never tried to help her or offered her resources, McGuire permitted the prosecution to inform jurors about Maniz’s prior criminal charges. The victim, in tun, acknowledged there were “prior cases” where she did interact with the district attorney’s office and had changed her story in those cases. A prosecution witness later clarified those prior criminal proceedings involving Maniz were in the category of “bad or felony cases.”
McGuire cautioned jurors that Maniz was only standing trial “for the crimes charged in this case and no other.”
On appeal, a Court of Appeals panel agreed the evidence of Maniz’s other criminal proceedings was fair game because the victim “put her credibility at issue.”
Turning to the Supreme Court, Maniz argued there was no guidance for what trial judges should do when the cross-examination of a witness about her untruthfulness also sweeps in evidence of the defendant’s prior bad conduct.
“The evidence the district court allowed the prosecution to elicit went beyond attacking (the victim’s) credibility,” wrote public defender Rachel Z. Geiman. “That information was unnecessary to impeach her credibility, implicating Mr. Maniz and suggesting that he frequently hurt (the victim) and then got away with it when she later disputed the allegations.”
Justices Richard L. Gabriel and Maria E. Berkenkotter indicated they would have granted the appeal to examine the propriety of letting jurors hear the evidence of Maniz’s prior charges involving the victim.
The case is Maniz v. People.
