The summaries of the Colorado Court of Appeals published opinions constitute no part of the opinion of the division but have been prepared by the division for the convenience of the reader. The summaries may not be cited or relied upon as they are not the official language of the division. Any discrepancy between the language in the summary and in the opinion should be resolved in favor of the language in the opinion.
SUMMARY December 12, 2019 2019COA181
No. 17CA2054, People v. Procasky — Crimes — Eluding or Attempting to Elude a Police Officer — Possession of a Deadly Weapon on School Grounds
In an issue of first impression, a division of the court of
appeals holds that driving for two blocks, without accelerating,
before turning into a parking lot in response to a police officer’s
signal to pull over does not constitute sufficient evidence to convict
for vehicular eluding. In a second issue of first impression, the
court determines that pulling into a school parking lot with a gun
present in the vehicle in response to a police officer’s directive is not
sufficient evidence to prove “unlawful” conduct for purposes of
section 18-12-105.5, C.R.S. 2019.
The court also considers whether a trial court plainly errs
when it omits a specific intent element from a jury instruction for
attempted first degree assault. It concludes that, though omission of the element was erroneous, the jury instructions — read together
— adequately informed the jury regarding the required mens rea.
Additionally, rejecting the notion that proof of attempted first
degree assault necessarily establishes felony menacing, the court
concludes that a defendant can stand convicted of both offenses;
thus, those convictions do not merge.
Finally, the court determines that a defendant is not
prejudiced when — in his or her absence — defense counsel and
the prosecution stipulate that a jury may have access during
deliberations to physical evidence introduced at trial.
Accordingly, the division affirms the judgement in part, vacates
in part, and remands to the trial court to correct the mittimus. COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2019COA181
Court of Appeals No. 17CA2054 El Paso County District Court No. 17CR565 Honorable William B. Bain, Judge
The People of the State of Colorado,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Cody Lee Procasky,
Defendant-Appellant.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND CASE REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS
Division I Opinion by JUDGE TAUBMAN Freyre and Pawar, JJ., concur
Announced December 12, 2019
Philip J. Weiser, Attorney General, Brittany L. Limes, Assistant Attorney General, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Megan A. Ring, Colorado State Public Defender, Jacob B. McMahon, Deputy State Public Defender, Denver, Colorado, for Defendant-Appellant ¶1 Defendant, Cody Lee Procasky, appeals the judgment of
conviction entered on a jury verdict finding him guilty of attempted
first degree assault, felony menacing, possession of a weapon on
school grounds, prohibited use of a weapon, reckless
endangerment, eluding a police officer, and a crime of violence
sentence enhancer. He contends that (1) the trial court plainly
erred when it failed to properly instruct the jury on the mens rea for
attempted first degree assault; (2) insufficient evidence supported
his conviction for eluding police; (3) insufficient evidence supported
his conviction for possession of a deadly weapon on school grounds;
(4) his conviction for felony menacing should merge with his
conviction for attempted first degree assault; and (5) the trial court
violated his constitutional right to be present during all critical
stages of his trial. We affirm in part and vacate in part.
¶2 We address two issues of first impression: (1) whether
Procasky could be convicted of vehicular eluding after driving two
blocks to a school parking lot and stopping there at police officers’
direction, and (2) whether Procasky could be convicted of
possession of a deadly weapon on school grounds when he stopped
at the school parking lot.
1 I. Background
¶3 On January 27, 2017, Raymond Butler contacted 911 to
report the driver of a black sedan who he believed had fired between
three and five shots at his vehicle while driving on the interstate.
¶4 Butler testified that he was driving in the left lane when he
observed the black sedan rapidly approaching. To allow the sedan
to pass, Butler merged into the right lane behind another vehicle.
He claimed that at the moment he applied his brakes, he noticed a
hand emerge from the sedan and saw “a muzzle flash.” He reported
that he heard a series of “thuds” that he was able to identify as
gunshots because he owns two guns.
¶5 Butler followed the sedan until two police officers arrived and
engaged their lights and sirens. The sedan continued for two blocks
on a two-lane residential road until it turned into a school parking
lot. One of the officers testified that she believed the vehicle could
have safely stopped on the side of the road at any point. The school
parking lot had an upper and lower level, separated by a curb. The
sedan originally proceeded toward the upper level but then drove
over the curb, that dropped off approximately six-inches, to the
lower level without braking. Once the car reached the lower level of
2 the parking lot, it stopped. Law enforcement officers ordered the
driver — Procasky — out of the car at gunpoint. Procasky complied
and walked toward the officers as ordered, at which point he was
arrested, and his car was searched. The officers uncovered a 9mm
Smith & Wesson pistol with a live round in the chamber under the
front passenger seat. They also found the pistol’s loaded magazine
in the center console and several 9mm bullets on the ground near
the driver’s side door. In the trunk, the officers found two rifles and
four boxes of ammunition. However, they did not find spent shell
casings in the car.
¶6 Procasky claimed that Butler’s car cut him off, and he heard
another car backfire right afterward. He denied pointing or firing
his pistol at Butler’s vehicle. He said the guns and ammunition
were in his vehicle because he had been target shooting the day
before.
¶7 The jury found him guilty of all charges, and the court
sentenced him to five years in the custody of the Department of
Corrections for his attempted first degree assault conviction. The
sentences for the lesser charges were to run concurrently.
3 II. Deficient Jury Instruction
¶8 Procasky contends that the trial court plainly erred by failing
to provide a specific intent element for the jury instruction on
attempted first degree assault.1 We discern no plain error.
A. Standard of Review
¶9 When a party has failed to properly preserve for appeal the
issue of whether jury instructions accurately informed the jury of
the governing law, we will reverse only if any error found rises to the
level of plain error. People v. Miller, 113 P.3d 743, 749 (Colo. 2005).
Plain error is error that is substantial, obvious, and “occurs when,
after reviewing the entire record, the reviewing court can say with
1 We reject the People’s contention that Procasky waived his challenge to the jury instructions on appeal simply because he did not object to them. See People v. Rediger, 2018 CO 32, ¶ 3, 416 P.3d 893, 897 (concluding the defendant’s mere acquiescence to a jury instruction does not constitute a waiver without evidence demonstrating that the defendant intentionally relinquished a known right). In the absence of evidence that the defendant intended to relinquish a known right, we indulge every reasonable presumption against waiver. Id. at ¶ 48, 416 P.3d at 903. Here, when the court asked if the challenged instruction looked satisfactory, defense counsel stated, “it does.” The People articulate no tactical or strategic reason supporting their argument that defense counsel intended to approve erroneous instructions. Id. at ¶ 44, 416 P.3d at 903.
4 fair assurance that the error so undermined the fundamental
fairness of the trial itself as to cast serious doubt on the reliability
of the judgment of conviction.” People v. Rector, 248 P.3d 1196,
1203 (Colo. 2011).
B. Applicable Law
¶ 10 We read jury instructions as a whole to determine whether,
when read together, they adequately informed the jury of the
governing law. Gann v. People, 736 P.2d 37, 39 (Colo. 1987). Thus,
a court’s failure to properly instruct the jury “does not constitute
plain error if the relevant instruction, read in conjunction with
other instructions, adequately informs the jury of the law.” Miller,
113 P.3d at 750; Gann, 736 P.2d at 39; see also People v. Petschow,
119 P.3d 495, 499 (Colo. App. 2004) (“[O]mission or erroneous
description of the required mens rea does not render an instruction
constitutionally deficient when the instructions taken as a whole
clearly instruct the jury regarding the omitted or erroneous
element.”).
¶ 11 Over three decades ago, the supreme court considered
whether the trial court plainly erred by omitting the culpable
mental state, an essential element of the offense, from a jury
5 instruction. Gann, 736 P.2d at 38. It held that the instruction was
erroneous, but because the omitted element was prominently
included in another instruction, the instructions as a whole
adequately informed the jury of the mens rea. Id. at 39. Since that
decision, multiple divisions of our court have also concluded that
omission of an essential element in an elemental instruction is not
fatal, so long as other jury instructions adequately inform the jury.
Petschow, 119 P.3d at 500-02; People v. Beatty, 80 P.3d 847, 851
(Colo. App. 2003); People v. Johnson, 74 P.3d 349, 353-54 (Colo.
App. 2002); People v. Caldwell, 43 P.3d 663, 671-72 (Colo. App.
2001); People v. Mendez, 897 P.2d 868, 870 (Colo. App. 1995);
People v. Key, 851 P.2d 228, 232 (Colo. App. 1992), rev’d on other
grounds, 865 P.2d 822 (Colo. 1994).
¶ 12 In Petschow, a division of our court considered whether the
court erred by failing to instruct the jury that attempted first degree
assault required that the defendant had the specific intent to
commit assault. The court described the relevant jury instructions
as follows:
The attempt instruction required the jury to find that defendant “intentionally, engaged in conduct constituting a substantial step toward
6 the commission of assault in the first degree.” The instruction on first degree assault properly required the jury to find that defendant acted with intent to cause serious bodily injury to another person. In addition, the jury was again instructed that a substantial step is conduct that is strongly corroborative of the firmness of the actor’s purpose to commit the crime.
Petschow, 119 P.3d at 502.
¶ 13 The division concluded that the trial court obviously erred by
failing to specify that the defendant must act with the intent to
cause serious bodily injury. Id. However, it held that “the
instructions, when read and considered together with the
instruction on the elements of first degree assault and the definition
of a substantial step, clearly instructed the jury regarding the
required mens rea.” Id. Thus, the court concluded that the error
did not affect the defendant’s substantial rights and did not require
reversal. Id.
C. Analysis
¶ 14 Here, the relevant jury instructions mirror those reviewed in
Petschow. The jury instruction for attempted first degree assault
required the jury to find that the defendant “with intent, engaged in
conduct constituting a substantial step toward the commission of
7 assault in the first degree.” Like in Petschow, the instruction did
not state that the defendant must have acted with the specific
intent to cause serious bodily injury. However, the attempt
instruction referenced the jury instruction for first degree assault,
which correctly described the mens rea required as “with intent to
cause serious bodily injury to another . . . .” Additionally, the jury
was instructed that “[a] substantial step is any conduct . . . which
is strongly corroborative of the firmness of the actor’s purpose to
complete the commission of the offense.”
¶ 15 We agree with the Petschow division. Here, the trial court’s
failure to provide the specific intent element in the instruction for
attempted first degree assault constituted error. However, we
conclude that the jury instructions in this case, when read and
considered together, clearly instructed the jury regarding the
required mens rea for attempted first degree assault. Accordingly,
we discern no plain error.
III. Eluding a Police Officer
¶ 16 Procasky argues that the prosecution produced insufficient
evidence to sustain a conviction for eluding a police officer. We
agree.
8 A. Standard of Review
¶ 17 We review sufficiency of the evidence claims de novo, even if
raised for the first time on appeal. McCoy v. People, 2019 CO 44,
¶ 34, 442 P.3d 379, 388.
B. Applicable Law and Analysis
¶ 18 In evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, we must
determine whether any rational trier of fact might accept the
evidence, taken as a whole and in the light most favorable to the
prosecution, as sufficient to support a finding of the defendant’s
guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Clark v. People, 232 P.3d 1287,
1291 (Colo. 2010); People v. Randell, 2012 COA 108, ¶ 31, 297 P.3d
989, 998. Our inquiry is guided by five well-established principles:
(1) we give the prosecution the benefit of every reasonable inference
that might fairly be drawn from the evidence; (2) the credibility of
witnesses is solely within the jury’s province; (3) we may not serve
as a thirteenth juror to determine the weight of the evidence; (4) a
modicum of relevant evidence will not rationally support a
conviction beyond a reasonable doubt; and (5) verdicts in criminal
cases may not be based on guessing, speculation, or conjecture.
9 People v. Sprouse, 983 P.2d 771, 778 (Colo. 1999); Randell, ¶ 31,
297 P.3d at 998.
¶ 19 We conduct our inquiry through the language of the statute
defining the offense of eluding a police officer. That statute
provides:
Any operator of a motor vehicle who the officer has reasonable grounds to believe has violated a state law or municipal ordinance, who has received a visual or audible signal such as a red light or a siren from a police officer driving a marked vehicle showing the same to be an official police, sheriff, or Colorado state patrol car directing the operator to bring the operator’s vehicle to a stop, and who willfully increases his or her speed or extinguishes his or her lights in an attempt to elude such police officer, or willfully attempts in any other manner to elude the police officer, or does elude such police officer commits a class 2 misdemeanor traffic offense.
§ 42-4-1413, C.R.S. 2019.
¶ 20 The People urge us to apply the holding in People v. Espinoza,
195 P.3d 1122, 1129 (Colo. App. 2008), to conclude that Procasky
attempted to elude police officers by driving two blocks before
pulling over in a school parking lot. In Espinoza, a division of our
court concluded that the defendant attempted to elude police
officers when, after a police officer signaled him to stop, he drove
10 slowly for four blocks before stopping and fleeing on foot. Id. at
1129. The division focused its inquiry on whether fleeing on foot
can constitute eluding under the statute. Id. In so doing, it
concluded that the statutory language “in any other manner” is
broad and includes attempts to elude on foot. Id.
¶ 21 However, the facts here are distinguishable. Espinoza did not
address whether the defendant’s driving four blocks before pulling
over constituted eluding; it addressed his pedestrian flight. Indeed,
no testimony indicated that Procasky attempted to flee on foot.
More importantly, none of the testimony indicated that he increased
his speed, extinguished his lights, or otherwise made an effort to
escape from the officers.
¶ 22 Moreover, the pursuit occurred in a residential neighborhood,
and law enforcement officers did not testify that Procasky exceeded
the speed limit; thus, we can infer that Procasky maintained a
lawful speed for two blocks before pulling over.
¶ 23 Nothing in the eluding statute requires immediate compliance.
§ 42-4-1413; see § 42-4-107, C.R.S. 2019 (requiring compliance
with lawful orders or directions of police officers). Our court has
found that evidence was sufficient to sustain an eluding conviction
11 when the defendant “drove ‘in such a manner as to indicate either a
wanton or a willful disregard for the safety of persons or property.’”
People v. Dutton, 2014 COA 51, ¶ 25, 356 P.3d 871, 875 (quoting
§ 42-4-1401(1), C.R.S. 2019). In Dutton, the division found that the
defendant attempted to elude officers, and an officer testified that
he saw the defendant
• spin his wheels so that they threw up sand and gravel; • accelerate rapidly; • travel at high rates of speed that were not safe for the area; • fail to stop at a stop sign; • fail to slow for turns; • slide sideways through turns; • continue to accelerate while being pursued by a police officer with activated overhead lights; and • swerve to avoid a pedestrian crossing the street.
Id. at ¶¶ 24-25, 356 P.3d at 875.
¶ 24 In People v. Pena, 962 P.2d 285, 288 (Colo. App. 1997),
another division of our court concluded that the evidence was
sufficient to establish eluding where “the police officer testified that
defendant’s car accelerated after the officer activated his lights and
siren and that the chase then continued for another quarter of a
mile.”
12 ¶ 25 Here, Procasky did not accelerate, and he drove only two
blocks before turning into a school parking lot, driving over a six-
inch curb, stopping, and then following the officer’s directions to get
out of his vehicle. These actions do not, in our view, establish to a
rational trier of fact that he attempted to elude the police officers.
Thus, we conclude that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the
conviction, and it must be vacated. See People v. Ramirez, 2018
COA 129, ¶ 41, ___P.3d___, ___.
IV. Possession of a Deadly Weapon on School Grounds
¶ 26 Procasky argues that he did not commit the felony of
possessing a deadly weapon on school grounds when he drove into
the school parking lot with his handgun in the car because he
pulled over in response to police officers’ sirens and flashing lights.
We agree.
¶ 27 We “review sufficiency claims de novo, even when the
defendant raises such issues for the first time on appeal and even if
consideration of the issue involves a preliminary question of
statutory construction.” McCoy, ¶ 34, 442 P.3d at 388.
13 B. Applicable Law and Analysis
¶ 28 When interpreting a statute, we strive to “ascertain and
effectuate the intent of the General Assembly.” People v. Diaz, 2015
CO 28, ¶ 12, 347 P.3d 621, 624. We look first to the plain language
of the statute to determine whether the language is clear and
unambiguous — such that it does not require additional analysis —
or susceptible of more than one reasonable interpretation, requiring
us to apply other rules of statutory interpretation. Id. at ¶¶ 12-13,
347 P.3d at 624-25.
¶ 29 Bearing in mind these principles, we look to the relevant
statute. It states, with certain exceptions inapplicable here, that
“[a] person commits a class 6 felony if such person knowingly and
unlawfully and without legal authority carries, brings, or has in
such person’s possession a deadly weapon . . . in or on the real
estate and all improvements erected thereon of any . . . school . . . .”
§ 18-12-105.5(1), C.R.S. 2019.
¶ 30 Turning first to the plain language of the statute, we discern
no ambiguity. We give each term its ordinary meaning. Doubleday
v. People, 2016 CO 3, ¶ 19, 364 P.3d 193, 196. Accordingly, the
defendant must have “unlawfully” entered school property with a
14 deadly weapon. The term “unlawfully” means that the defendant’s
action was in violation of the criminal code. See People v. McNeese,
892 P.2d 304, 312 (Colo. 1995) (stating that a statutory
requirement that a defendant “knowingly” and “unlawfully” entered
a dwelling requires that the defendant knew he was acting in
violation of the criminal code).
¶ 31 Thus, we must determine whether the evidence at trial was
sufficient to convict Procasky of knowingly and unlawfully
possessing a deadly weapon on school grounds.2 Employing the
sufficiency of the evidence analysis discussed above, we conclude
that Procasky pulled into the school parking lot in response to the
police officers’ sirens and flashing lights. Thus, by pulling over in
response to the police officers’ directive, Procasky was not acting
2 We need not address whether Procasky possessed a deadly weapon on school grounds “without legal authority,” because the People do not argue a distinction between “unlawfully” and “without legal authority,” and the statute was written in the conjunctive. See Waneka v. Clyncke, 134 P.3d 492, 499 (Colo. App. 2005) (“The General Assembly’s use of the word ‘and,’ instead of ‘or,’ is presumed to be in the conjunctive sense unless the legislative intent is clearly to the contrary.”), aff’d, 157 P.3d 1072 (Colo. 2007). Thus, because we conclude that he did not act unlawfully, it is of no consequence whether he acted “without legal authority.”
15 unlawfully. This is especially so given that Procasky was not
eluding officers when he pulled into the school parking lot rather
than stopping sooner on the shoulder of the road. Accordingly, the
evidence does not satisfy the elements required by the statute and
his conviction must be set aside. Ramirez, ¶ 41, ___ P.3d at ___.
V. Merger
¶ 32 Procasky urges us to merge his convictions for felony
menacing and attempted first degree assault because proof of
attempted first degree assault necessarily establishes felony
menacing. We decline to do so.
¶ 33 Whether merger applies is subject to de novo review. People v.
Esparza-Treto, 282 P.3d 471, 478 (Colo. App. 2011). Procasky did
not preserve this issue for appeal because he did not object when
the court entered separate convictions for felony menacing and
attempted first degree assault; thus, plain error review applies.
People v. Davis, 2015 CO 36M, ¶ 32, 352 P.3d 950, 957. Plain error
is “‘obvious and substantial,’ and must have ‘so undermined the
fundamental fairness of the [proceeding] so as to cast serious doubt
on the reliability of the judgment.’” Id. (citations omitted).
16 B. Applicable Law
¶ 34 The merger doctrine precludes conviction of both a greater and
lesser included offense. § 18-1-408(1)(a), C.R.S. 2019; People v.
Delci, 109 P.3d 1035, 1037 (Colo. App. 2004). In so doing, the
doctrine protects the accused from double jeopardy, which is
prohibited by the United States and Colorado Constitutions. U.S.
Const. amend. V; Colo. Const. art. II, § 18.
¶ 35 A lesser included offense is established by proof of the same or
less than all of the facts required to establish the commission of the
offense charged. § 18-1-408(5)(a); Delci, 109 P.3d at 1038. “Where
the [G]eneral [A]ssembly proscribes conduct in different provisions
of the penal code and identifies each provision with a different title,
its intent to establish more than one offense is generally clear.”
People v. Abiodun, 111 P.3d 462, 465 (Colo. 2005).
¶ 36 However, we apply a “strict elements test” to determine if proof
of the facts establishing the statutory elements of the greater
offense necessarily establishes all the elements of the lesser offense;
if so, the lesser offense merges into the greater. See People v.
Zweygardt, 2012 COA 119, ¶ 13, 298 P.3d 1018, 1021. “[A]n
offense is a lesser included offense of another offense if the
17 elements of the lesser offense are a subset of the elements of the
greater offense, such that the lesser offense contains only elements
that are also included in the elements of the greater offense.”
Reyna-Abarca v. People, 2017 CO 15, ¶ 64, 390 P.3d 816, 826.
¶ 37 Our analysis requires us to compare the elements of the
operative offenses — attempted first degree assault and felony
menacing.
¶ 38 Attempted first degree assault requires that a defendant, with
intent to cause serious bodily injury, takes a substantial step
toward causing another person serious bodily injury. § 18-2-
101(1), C.R.S. 2019; § 18-3-202(1)(a), C.R.S. 2019.
¶ 39 Felony menacing, however, requires the jury to find that a
defendant knowingly, by any threat or physical action, places or
attempts to place another person in fear of serious bodily injury or
death. § 18-3-206(1)(a), C.R.S. 2019. Thus, felony menacing
directs the fact finder’s attention toward the defendant’s knowledge
of the victim’s state of mind.
¶ 40 “[T]he fact that a defendant intentionally caused or attempted
to cause bodily injury to an intended victim does not necessarily
18 compel the conclusion that the defendant also knowingly placed the
victim in fear of serious bodily injury.” People v. Truesdale, 804
P.2d 287, 288-89 (Colo. App. 1990). Divisions of our court in
People v. Torres, 224 P.3d 268, 276 (Colo. App. 2009), and
Truesdale, 804 P.2d at 288-89, have concluded that felony
menacing is not a lesser included offense of second degree murder
or second degree assault. Those divisions reasoned that a
defendant’s intent to harm or kill the victim does not automatically
imply that the defendant also intended to instill fear in the victim.
See Torres, 224 P.3d at 276; Truesdale, 804 P.2d at 288-89.
Recently, the supreme court in Margerum v. People, 2019 CO 100, ¶
27, ___ P.3d ___, ___, recognized that menacing is not a lesser
included offense of assault. Importantly, the supreme court
affirmed a division of this court’s observation that “all defendants in
assault cases will not necessarily face criminal liability for
menacing simply because the victim is afraid during an assault,
because the proper focus is on the defendant’s intent, not the
victim’s perception or reaction.” People v. Margerum, 2018 COA 52,
¶ 68, ___ P.3d ___, ___, aff’d, 2019 CO 100, ___P.3d___, ___.
19 ¶ 41 In addition, we agree with the People that if a defendant
attempted to assault the victim while the victim’s back was turned
or while he or she was asleep, the defendant could not have placed
or attempted to place the victim in fear of bodily injury or death.
¶ 42 In light of our case law and the evidence presented at trial, we
conclude that felony menacing and attempted first degree assault
do not merge.
VI. Right to be Present
¶ 43 Last, Procasky contends that the trial court violated his
constitutional right to be present at his trial when it communicated
with the deliberating jury while he was outside the courtroom. We
disagree.
¶ 44 We review de novo the question of whether a trial court denied
a defendant’s constitutional right to be present. Zoll v. People, 2018
CO 70, ¶ 15, 425 P.3d 1120, 1125.3 When, as here, the defendant
3 We decline to conclude that a violation of a defendant’s right to be present constitutes structural error, as Procasky argues. See Zoll v. People, 2018 CO 70, ¶ 15, 425 P.3d 1120, 1125; see also Weaver v. Massachusetts, 582 U.S. ___, ___, 137 S. Ct. 1899, 1912-13 (2017) (finding that prejudice is not presumed when the trial court violated
20 was not present and had no opportunity to object to his absence,
we review allegations of denial of the right to be present at trial for
constitutional harmless error. Id. at ¶ 17, 425 P.3d at 1125-26;
Luu v. People, 841 P.2d 271, 274 (Colo. 1992). We affirm if any
alleged error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Luu, 841
P.2d at 275.
¶ 45 A criminal defendant has the right to be present at all critical
stages of his or her prosecution. People v. White, 870 P.2d 424, 458
(Colo. 1994). Due process demands a defendant’s presence to the
extent that a fair and just hearing would be thwarted by his or her
absence. Luu, 841 P.2d at 275. “However, due process does not
require the defendant’s presence when it would be useless or only
slightly beneficial.” People v. Isom, 140 P.3d 100, 104 (Colo. App.
2005).
the defendant’s right to a public trial on claim of ineffective assistance of counsel); Luu v. People, 841 P.2d 271, 274 (Colo. 1992).
21 C. Analysis
¶ 46 Here, while the jury deliberated, the trial court returned to the
bench in response to an issue about the jury’s access to the
magazine, pistol, and live rounds recovered during the search.
Though Procasky was not present, his defense attorney was and
explained that Procasky was downstairs with his grandfather. The
prosecutor and defense counsel stipulated that, if the jury wanted
access to the physical evidence, it could view the magazine, pistol,
and live rounds individually, but not all together. Both attorneys
agreed that the clerk could communicate to the jury that all
exhibits would remain in the courtroom but that each could be sent
back for viewing. The record does not show whether the jurors ever
requested to view the exhibits.
¶ 47 Assuming, without deciding, that Procasky had a
constitutional right to be present, we conclude that the People have
shown beyond a reasonable doubt that any error did not contribute
to the verdict.
¶ 48 Further, it is unlikely that Procasky’s presence would have
resulted in a different ruling. The jury had already viewed the
requested evidence during trial and heard testimony about the
22 evidence. Moreover, there was no question that Procasky possessed
the gun, magazine, and ammunition on the day in question; the
primary issue was whether he aimed it and shot at Butler. Without
the corroborating testimony provided by Butler and law
enforcement officers, none of the evidence requested for viewing by
the jury — standing alone — proved any of the crimes for which
Procasky was convicted. Therefore, we discern no prejudice caused
by Procasky’s absence during this stage of the trial. Thus, any
error stemming from Procasky’s absence was harmless beyond a
reasonable doubt.
VII. Conclusion
¶ 49 Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed in part and vacated in
part. We vacate Procasky’s convictions for eluding a police officer
and possession of a deadly weapon on school grounds and affirm
his remaining convictions. We remand to the trial court to amend
the mittimus.
JUDGE FREYRE and JUDGE PAWAR concur.