Castro v. People.

2024 CO 56. No. 22SC712. Mid-Deliberations Juror Substitution—Alternate Juror—Standard of Reversal—Presumption of Prejudice—CRS § 16-10-105—People v. Boulies, 690 P.2d 1253 (Colo. 1984)—People v. Burnette, 775 P.2d 583 (Colo. 1989)—United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993)—Carrillo v. People, 974 P.2d 478 (Colo. 1999)—James v. People, 2018 CO 72, 426 P.3d 336.

July 1, 2024

The Supreme Court concluded that CRS  § 16-10-105,, is ambiguous as to whether a trial court has authority to replace a regular juror with an alternate juror during deliberations. But the Court further concluded that, regardless of whether substituting a regular juror with an alternate juror during deliberations is error, it is potentially prejudicial to the defendant. So, instead of delving into the appropriate standard of review to ascertain whether an error occurred in this mid-deliberations juror substitution case, the Court presumed that a mid-deliberations substitution of a regular juror with an alternate juror always prejudices the defendant. It follows that the only relevant inquiry on review is whether reversal is warranted. And that question turns on whether the precautions employed by the trial court, when considered in light of the surrounding circumstances, overcome the presumption of prejudice to the defendant.

Hence, the Court explicitly proclaimed the continued vitality of the principle it first articulated in People v. Burnette, 775 P.2d 583 (Colo. 1989), and then reinforced in Carrillo v. People, 974 P.2d 478 (Colo. 1999): Substitution of a regular juror with an alternate juror during deliberations raises a presumption of prejudice to the defendant’s right to a fair trial, but that presumption may be overcome by taking the precautions delineated in those cases. Here, the Court concluded that the trial court complied with the precautions laid out in Burnette and Carrillo and noted that the trial court’s approach “provides a textbook example” of the proper effectuation of the teachings of those cases. Because the meticulous precautions employed by the trial court were sufficient under the circumstances of this case to rebut the presumption of prejudice to the defendant, the Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals.

The full opinion is available at https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/sites/default/files/2024-07/22SC712.pdf.