Peo v. Ladd ( 2024 )

<div><div><div><div id="pdf-container" style="width: 782px">
<div id="pf1" data-page-no="1">
<div><div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>22CA1212 Peo v Ladd 10-17-2024 </div>
<div> </div>
<div>COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Court of Appeals No. 22CA1212 </div>
<div>Douglas County District Court No. 21CR469 </div>
<div>Honorable Theresa Slade, Judge </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>The People of the State of Colorado, </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Plaintiff-Appellee, </div>
<div> </div>
<div>v. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Dennis Floyd Ladd, </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Defendant-Appellant. </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>JUDGMENT REVERSED<span> AND CASE </span>
</div>
<div>REMANDED<span> <span>WITH DIRECTIONS</span> </span>
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Division III </div>
<div>Opinion by JUDGE DUNN </div>
<div>Navarro and <span>Richman*</span>, JJ., concur </div>
<div> </div>
<div>NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e) </div>
<div>Announced October 17, 2024 </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Philip J. Weiser, Attorney General, Jaycey DeHoyos, Assistant Attorney </div>
<div>General, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellee </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Megan A. Ring, Colorado State Public Defender, John Plimpton, Deputy State </div>
<div>Public Defender, Denver, Colorado, for Defendant-Appellant </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>*Sitting by assignment of the Chief Justice under provisions of Colo. Const. art. </div>
<div>VI, § 5(3), and § 24-51-1105, C.R.S. 2024.</div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf2" data-page-no="2">
<div><div>
<div> </div>
<div>1 </div>
<div>¶ 1<span> </span><span>Defendant, Dennis Floyd Ladd, appeals his felony convictions </span>
</div>
<div>for various sex crimes<span>. </span> Ladd specifically contends that the trial </div>
<div>court erred by denying his causal challenges to two prospective </div>
<div>jurors <span>—</span> Juror T and Juror C <span>—</span> both of whom ultimately served <span></span>on </div>
<div>the jury. Because we agree that the court erred by denying the </div>
<div>challenge for cause as to Juror T, we <span>needn’t consider Ladd’s </span>
</div>
<div>arguments regarding Juror C. We reverse the judgment and </div>
<div>remand for a new trial. </div>
<div>I.<span> <span>Voir Dire </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 2<span> </span><span>At the beginning of voir dire, the court reviewed the basic legal </span>
</div>
<div>principles that applied to the case, including, among other </div>
<div>principles, that a <span>“defendant has a constitutional right not <span></span>to </span>
</div>
<div>testify,”<span> </span><span>and that “[t]he decision not to testify cannot <span></span>be used as an </span>
</div>
<div>inference of guilt.”<span> <span> </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 3<span> </span><span>During voir dire, defense counsel questioned the panel about <span>a </span></span>
</div>
<div>criminal defendant<span>’s</span> right to be silent<span>. </span>As part of that discussion, </div>
<div>defense counsel asked <span>whether anyone was “going to need to hea<span></span>r </span>
</div>
<div>from [defense counsel], or [Ladd], or a witness I bring forwa<span></span>rd to </div>
<div>disprove the prosecution’s evidence.” After <span>several prospective </span>
</div>
<div>jurors agreed that they would generally want to hear f<span></span>rom both </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf3" data-page-no="3">
<div><div>
<div> </div>
<div>2 </div>
<div>sides, defense counsel then explained, more specifically, that </div>
<div>“<span>[Ladd] could take a walk right up there, sit in that chair, swe<span></span>ar an </span>
</div>
<div>oath to swear the truth, and you could hear it right<span></span> from the horse’s </div>
<div>mouth what his position on the allegations are.” <span>And defense </span>
</div>
<div>counsel stated, “That is [Ladd’s] right. No one can take that away </div>
<div>from him. He also doesn’t have to do that if he does<span></span>n’t want to. </div>
<div>Okay. It could be his turn to testify and he says no thanks.” <span> </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 4<span> </span><span>Continuing to probe this topic<span>, </span>defense counsel asked jurors if </span>
</div>
<div>they would “want to hear from <span>[Ladd].</span>” This colloquy led to a </div>
<div>prospective juror saying, “We’re all sitting here telling you that<span></span> we </div>
<div>would all wonder, but when does wonder kind of creep in <span></span>a little bit </div>
<div>further than just wonder and kind of go, you know, it<span></span> makes it look </div>
<div>really questionable why <span>[Ladd didn’t testify].” Defense counsel <span></span>then </span>
</div>
<div>polled the panel to see who agreed with this position. Multiple </div>
<div>prospective jurors agreed, including Juror T. </div>
<div>¶ 5<span> <span>As part of defense counsel’s follow<span>-up, he and Juror T had the </span></span></span>
</div>
<div>following exchange:<span> </span> </div>
<div>Defense counsel: Okay. [Juror T], the law is </div>
<div>you can’t consider that whatsoever as an </div>
<div>inference of guilt or innocence if [Ladd] <span>doesn’t </span>
</div>
<div>speak his peace to you. Are we on the same </div>
<div>page so far?<span> </span> </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf4" data-page-no="4">
<div><div>
<div> </div>
<div>3 </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Juror T: Yes. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Defense counsel: What are your thoughts </div>
<div>about that? Is that going to be difficult for you </div>
<div>to follow or are you going to be able to <span>—</span> </div>
<div>because you raised your hand before. It </div>
<div>sounds like you’ve got an opinion on it you </div>
<div>kind of agree with [another prospective juror] </div>
<div>that it’s something to think about. Can you </div>
<div>follow the law?<span> </span> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Juror T: I have the same answer and I would </div>
<div>probably take it as far as to <span>say it’s unusual, </span>
</div>
<div>but you know, that said, I can’t remember who </div>
<div>was talking down there, I wouldn’t take it to </div>
<div>that extent. But, yeah, I think if I had to lean </div>
<div>one direction or another, it’s not neutral. You </div>
<div>know, there’s a small —<span> it would create a small </span>
</div>
<div>gray area for me. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Defense counsel: When you say gray area, do </div>
<div>you mean like an inference of guilt? </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Juror T: Yeah.<span> </span> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Defense counsel: So despite the law that you </div>
<div>can’t, you think that might happen to you </div>
<div>based on the circumstances.<span> </span> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Juror T: I understand what you’re saying </div>
<div>about the law.<span> </span>I think applying the logic in my </div>
<div>head when my two kids fight in the living room </div>
<div>and I catch them after the fact, it’s like one </div>
<div>says what happened, the other one doesn’t. </div>
<div>Well, okay, then there’s one versus the other </div>
<div>that I tend to lean towards for sure.<span> </span> </div>
<div> </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf5" data-page-no="5">
<div><div>
<div> </div>
<div>4 </div>
<div>Defense counsel: So other than just sort of </div>
<div>common sense or logic<span>al nature of it, you’ve </span>
</div>
<div>got some life experience with your two kids. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Juror T: I think everybody has life experience </div>
<div>in some regard, yes. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>¶ 6<span> <span>Juror T wasn’t questioned further on this response or abo<span></span>ut <span>a </span></span></span>
</div>
<div>defendant’s <span>right to <span>be</span> silent.<span> </span> </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 7<span> </span><span>At the end of voir dire, defense counsel challenged Juror T for </span>
</div>
<div>cause<span>, pointing to Juror T’s statement that<span> if Ladd exercised his </span></span>
</div>
<div>right to silence, it would create an inference of guilt<span>. </span>The </div>
<div>prosecutor <span>objected and pointed out that “</span>there was no follow <span></span>up<span>” </span>
</div>
<div>regarding whether Juror T <span>“</span>could follow the law if he was instr<span></span>ucted </div>
<div>by the court.” <span>Defense counsel responded</span>, “If the <span>[<span>c]</span><span>ourt is incline<span></span>d </span></span>
</div>
<div>to agree with [the prosecutor], I would ask the [c]ourt [to] ask [Juror </div>
<div>T] explicitly if he could follow the law.” <span> </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 8<span> </span><span>The court denied the causal challenge without questioning </span>
</div>
<div>Juror T or addressing whether Juror T could follow the <span></span>law.<span> </span>In </div>
<div>doing so, the court said: </div>
<div>I actually think [Juror T] was responding to </div>
<div>other types of questions that were being asked. </div>
<div>There was a discussion about number of </div>
<div>witnesses and if you believe someone. He did </div>
<div>say this gives us something to think about, </div>
<div>that he didn’t agree with [Juror <span>E]. He even </span>
</div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf6" data-page-no="6">
<div>
<img alt="" src="https://icbg.s3.amazonaws.com/media/MM9/Zgu/MM9ZguMTW/pwsU7Hj38Z0aT83wGmUtrM/47S7PRRijEBs%3D?AWSAccessKeyId=ASIA5PHC3MTP56DQRCA7&amp;Expires=1729526590&amp;Signature=pLmMFn0KhMCejaqpAnTHLmXT1HQ%3D&amp;x-amz-security-token=IQoJb3JpZ2luX2VjECYaCXVzLWVhc3QtMSJHMEUCIHISCC%2Fl52gi2rCnKksNrK%2Bv662ne0t4hSMnAhqjYphHAiEA6F5uebypYfWpaLCWnngE5Ct%2BuKHhJfA9DgkjiPMz9gAquwUIj%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2FARAAGgw5MjYwNDEyMDM5MzUiDOjZG5IQdK8OvLQqtiqPBZz0XlmmRsWAFykLhhzjKJIGGdaZ%2FhRXUT83LltBbhIDZ6KQ5UO3vp7Mkg6LyyhWrO4NGg8XkpOVvbXTBWEg1LlGeyOiaVQ%2B8CAt9RjqC1UAOh2KwhgXChLqhFlqDqEwVitXzLA6LAyyzcaL68704bC9HpheXcPBFkEphPXFrcSV45j9%2BJ2lPp%2BPOG8YIP%2BAgWB4uderyAE2sfAUhtgWP%2BFVRWwbtJP%2FR5iEv4ZVsgIG%2BwPnVl8beIHn%2F9yg2QMrAkmsaN82l4%2Fg5eA%2FxJc0steEMHNA2%2FxSM5ovAJZNjZyEYGUmjFN25lwlC811GqI4s6CRm9Iuls8hHE6rXCGAT9R3b1hRKIYIpu2sDrwcBvcohK4yTJx9g2lJn0Nfl1sHUvzqQNBjGco9%2BhS%2B38g24j7VmjG1csORyXw5uB2vY0M8LQOCj6cMLf5n%2FH4fAAskY68H4ii1xEEGtSXfMvnZv%2Fx4rFMdMIxpFi%2BGiW5GIZnPaRjBH98Ajg6Op8vhjVNDxmS7FHcI00fvoPvX7DVgSlGjuHo14tFhlh68q2JKVuKO4sYxMrOBd22t966qSt24LhY2TXQNqWli32hnlpcqaFrYRoI9OKI9oZwCW5J0pzFjs9ghUnTUUn0u3iiIL%2BRuD5YJO2yvU5t5s4ThYBSZ7J2r5aCEptPeM5TBkS%2FbSTfIdf2zWIWpNVz1yTvldeeqrVvnjCWRrrR%2B3jLcVNMjQOGwkqG3fXU8XiSMhc1QgsvjOfKdwAxQbLcRCMCpsU1ly7r6PcHoXqde19%2BpM9gPNNZex2Dk%2FQTWgfel2Rr%2FulEEu64I0i9xIuIFdQoawd3vwTIHNa8bX98zL3iOfdQw1RFVI09NmAJVuT3Sk5x2su0wqrvZuAY6sQE3DUT%2FMtWh2jPazYoIA63TyglaopaFKoHZPjBKzNKqxpZD1%2BvMW1XZ5CE7UQM8fg7iyMpKN9mLKNWLfb7jFfYDBbZaP4Q9YTLoIa1sMttdN7NamSky0o0tj1YMDeTev7uB%2Fw9Alb0E74oqA5XfO0s4vIpPiCwmBFKayMpNhjMxinK6RTOBkCQdcd1ndzMRwYyQcIINCSoyivwlYkyB1GBfYAVIPG8AmWb%2BHi9MsqLYQD4%3D"><div>
<div> </div>
<div>5 </div>
<div>references [<span>Juror E]. He goes, “But I </span>
</div>
<div>understand where he’s coming from. I just </div>
<div>think it’s different.” I think at that point </div>
<div>[Juror O] interrupted and started talking about </div>
<div>[the] <span>People’s burden of proof. So I’m not </span>
</div>
<div>excusing [Juror T] for cause.</div>
</div>
<div><div>1</div></div>
<div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>¶ 9<span> </span><span>Defense counsel exhausted his peremptory challenges, and </span>
</div>
<div>Juror T ultimately sat on the jury. </div>
<div>II.<span> <span>Analysis </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 10<span> </span><span>Ladd elected not to testify at trial. <span>Based on Juror T’s </span></span>
</div>
<div>statement about the inference of guilt, Ladd maintains that t<span></span>he trial </div>
<div>court reversibly erred by denying his challenge for cause to Juror T<span>. </span>
</div>
<div>We agree. </div>
<div>¶ 11<span> </span><span>Every criminal defendant has a constitutional right to a trial </span>
</div>
<div>by a<span>n </span>impartial jury. <span>See</span> U.S. Const. amends. VI, XIV; Colo. C<span></span>onst. </div>
<div>art. II, § 16; <span>see also People v. Blassingame</span>, 2021 COA 11, ¶ <span>10</span>. To </div>
<div>protect this right, a court must disqualify a juror who indicates a </div>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div><div>1</div></div>
<div>
<div> In its ruling, t<span>he</span> court seems to have mixed Juror T up with other </div>
<div>prospective jurors<span>. </span>For instance, the court said that Juror T had </div>
<div>specifically referenced prospective Juror E, but the record <span></span>shows </div>
<div>that prospective Juror P <span>—</span> not Juror <span>T </span><span>—</span> specifically referenced </div>
<div>prospective Juror E. And the court said that prospective Juror <span></span>O </div>
<div>interrupted Juror T <span>to discuss the prosecution’s burden of p<span></span>roof<span>, </span></span>
</div>
<div>but prospective Juror O<span>’s </span>comments about the burden of proof </div>
<div>followed the questioning of prospective Jurors R and P<span>, </span>again not </div>
<div>Juror T.<span> </span> </div>
</div>
<a href="#pf6" data-dest-detail='[6,"XYZ",69,219,null]'><div style="border-style:none;position:absolute;left:431.198889px;bottom:794.011111px;width:10.080000px;height:16.430000px;background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0.000001);"></div></a>
</div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf7" data-page-no="7">
<div><div>
<div> </div>
<div>6 </div>
<div>bias in favor of or against either side, unless the court is satisfie<span></span>d </div>
<div>that the juror will render an impartial verdict that is based s<span></span>olely on </div>
<div>the evidence and instructions of the court. <span>See</span> <span>Blassingame</span>, <span></span>¶ <span>11<span>; </span></span>
</div>
<div>see<span> also<span> § <span>16</span><span>-<span>10</span></span>-103(1)(j), C.R.S. 2024; Crim. P. 24(b)(1)(X). </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 12<span> </span><span>When faced with a prospective juror who is unable to accept </span>
</div>
<div>basic principles of criminal law <span>—</span> <span>such as a defendant’s right</span>s to </div>
<div>remain silent and elect not to testify <span>—</span> the trial court must excus<span></span>e </div>
<div>the prospective juror unless, after further examination, the <span></span>court is </div>
<div>convinced that the juror will follow the law and be impartial. <span>See, </span>
</div>
<div>e.g.<span>,</span><span> Marko v. People<span>, <span>201</span><span>8 CO 97, ¶ 21;</span></span> People v<span>. </span></span>Clemens<span>, <span>2017 </span></span>
</div>
<div>CO 89, ¶ 16. Thus, if a prospective juror<span>’</span>s statements compel the </div>
<div>inference that the <span>juror can’t or won’t</span> <span>follow the court’s </span>
</div>
<div>instructions, and no rehabilitation occurs, the challenge for caus<span></span>e </div>
<div>must be granted. <span>People v. Maestas</span>, 2014 COA 139M, ¶ 18. </div>
<div>¶ 13<span> </span><span>We review the trial court<span>’</span>s denial of a challenge for cause for </span>
</div>
<div>an abuse of discretion. <span>Id.</span> at ¶ 11. If the court fails to excuse a </div>
<div>biased juror who then serves on the jury, the error is st<span></span>ructural and </div>
<div>requires reversal. <span>S<span>ee <span>Clark v. People</span></span></span>, 2024 CO 55, <span>¶ <span>35</span><span>; </span></span><span>People v. </span>
</div>
<div>Abu-Nantambu-<span>El</span><span>, 2019 CO 106, ¶ <span>30</span>. </span>
</div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf8" data-page-no="8">
<div><div>
<div> </div>
<div>7 </div>
<div>¶ 14<span> </span><span>Based on the record here, the trial court should have </span>
</div>
<div>dismissed Juror T. Juror T plainly and directly agreed when asked </div>
<div>if<span> he would use <span>Ladd’s silence </span>against him by inferring guilt from </span>
</div>
<div>Ladd’s decision not to testify. <span>And because neither the prosec<span></span>utor </span>
</div>
<div>nor the court asked any clarifying questions on this point, <span></span>Juror T </div>
<div>never assured the court that he could set aside his clearly </div>
<div>expressed view and apply the law as instructed<span>. </span>Because nothing </div>
<div>in the record demonstrat<span>es</span> Juror T <span>would not hold Ladd’s sil<span></span>ence </span>
</div>
<div>against him, the court erred by denying the causal challenge<span>. </span><span>See </span>
</div>
<div>Blasingame<span>, ¶<span>¶ 13, 21, 27 (concluding the trial court erred by </span></span>
</div>
<div>failing to dismiss a juror who gave “uncertain answers”<span> about </span>
</div>
<div>whether she could follow the law and was never sufficiently </div>
<div>rehabilitated)<span>; <span>see also People v. Merrow<span>, 181 P.3d 319, 321 (Colo. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div>App. 2007) <span>(noting that when a prospective juror’s</span> statements </div>
<div>“<span>compel the inference</span>”<span> that they cannot decide issues fairly, </span>“<span>a </span>
</div>
<div>challenge for cause must be granted in the absence of rehabilitative </div>
<div>questioning or other counter-<span>balancing information”</span><span>).</span> </div>
<div>¶ 15<span> </span><span>The People attempt to salvage <span>the court’s ruling by </span>suggesting </span>
</div>
<div>that Juror T’s statement should be considered less <span>concerning </span>
</div>
<div>because it was in response to a leading question and Juror T neve<span></span>r </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf9" data-page-no="9">
<div><div>
<div> </div>
<div>8 </div>
<div>said he wouldn’t follow the court’s <span>instructions on the right to </span>
</div>
<div>silence<span>. <span>But that<span>’s</span> precisely the problem. <span>Th</span>ese points could have </span></span>
</div>
<div>been explored in rehabilitative questioning, but because neither the </div>
<div>prosecutor nor the court opted to question Juror T about his <span></span>plain </div>
<div>statement <span>that he would use Ladd’s silence as an inference of guilt</span><span>, </span>
</div>
<div>we may not assume that Juror T could set aside his views and </div>
<div>apply the law<span>. </span><span>See</span> <span>People v. Zurenko</span>, 833 P.2d 794, 797 (Colo. <span></span>App. </div>
<div>1991) (noting an appellate court <span>“may not</span> assume<span>”</span> that a juror </div>
<div>would render an impartial verdict where no attempt was made t<span></span>o </div>
<div>determine if she could apply the law after she indicated a </div>
<div>preconceived bias)<span>; </span><span>see also Maestas</span>, ¶ 19<span> </span>(concluding the trial </div>
<div>court reversibly erred by denying a challenge for cause to a </div>
<div>prospective juror who said she might hold the defendant’s sil<span></span>ence </div>
<div>against him, <span>was “never rehabilitated</span><span>,<span>”</span></span> and sat on the jury<span>).</span><span> </span> </div>
<div>¶ 16<span> </span><span>Nor do w<span>e </span>attribute any significance to <span>Juror T’s silence in </span></span>
</div>
<div>response to <span>defense counsel’s </span>final voir dire question asking </div>
<div>whether there are <span>any prospective jurors “</span><span>o</span><span>ther than the people I’<span></span>ve </span>
</div>
<div>already spoken to” who would use Ladd’s silence against him.<span></span> </div>
<div>Because Juror T had already expressed his view that he would infer </div>
<div>guilt from Ladd’s silence, we don’t agree that <span>J</span><span>uror <span></span>T’s <span>silence in </span></span>
</div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pfa" data-page-no="a">
<div><div>
<div> </div>
<div>9 </div>
<div>response to the question aimed at others <span>su</span>ggests <span>—</span> particularly in </div>
<div>the absence of rehabilitative questioning <span>—</span> that his views had </div>
<div>changed.<span> <span>Cf. Cleme<span>ns</span></span>, ¶<span> <span>19</span> (holding <span>“a prospective juror’s silence </span></span></span>
</div>
<div>in response to <span>rehabilitative</span> <span>questioning </span>constitutes evidence that<span></span> </div>
<div>the juror has been rehabilitated when the context of t<span></span>hat silence </div>
<div>indicates that the juror will render an impartial verdict acco<span></span>rding to </div>
<div>the law and the evidence”)<span> (emphasis added).<span> </span><span> </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 17<span> </span><span>Because Juror T expressed that he would infer guilt from </span>
</div>
<div>Ladd’s silence<span>, a<span>nd he was not rehabilitated, the trial court abused </span></span>
</div>
<div>its discretion by denying the challenge for cause. And because </div>
<div>Juror T served on the jury, we must reverse. <span>See Maestas</span>, ¶ <span>20.<span></span><span> <span> </span></span></span>
</div>
<div>III.<span> <span>Disposition </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 18<span> </span><span>The judgment is reversed<span>, </span>and the case is remanded for a new </span>
</div>
<div>trial. </div>
<div>JUDGE NAVARRO and JUDGE RICHMAN concur. </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
</div></div></div></div>