People v. Ray.
2025 CO 42M. No. 10SA157. Res Gestae—Other Misconduct By Accused—Other Misconduct Showing Motive—Character of Accused—Impeachment Evidence—Character of Victim—Victim Impact Evidence—Victim Fear Evidence—In-Life Photographs—Hearsay—Excited Utterance Hearsay Exception—Then-Existing State of Mind or Body Hearsay Exception—“Catch-All” or Residual Hearsay Exception—“Opening the Door”—Prosecutorial Misconduct—Appeals to Sympathy or Prejudice—Appeals to Racial or Other Prejudice—Presumption of Innocence—Rebuttal Argument—Harmless Error—Plain Error—Cumulative Error—Misconduct of or Affecting Jurors—Considering Matters Not In Evidence—Extraneous Prejudicial Information—Separation of Powers—Judicial Powers and Functions—Encroachment on Executive—Pardon and Parole—Cruel and Unusual Punishment.
September 8, 2025
In this direct appeal, Ray asserted that the district court erred by admitting uncharged misconduct evidence as res gestae, witness- and victim-fear evidence, victim-impact evidence during the guilt phase of trial, and positive evidence of the homicide victims’ characters. He also asserted that the prosecution engaged in numerous instances of misconduct, which violated his right to a fair trial. He further contended that the district court erred by denying his request to subpoena jurors to investigate allegations of juror misconduct during deliberations. And finally, he challenged his sentences of life without the possibility of parole as unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment.
The supreme court concluded that although the district court erred in some ways, none of those errors, individually or cumulatively, warranted reversal. Similarly, although some of the prosecution’s comments were improper, none of them constituted reversible misconduct. The court further concluded that the district court properly denied inquiry into alleged juror misconduct under CRE 606(b). And lastly, the court held that Ray’s sentences are constitutional.
The court therefore affirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence.
In this direct appeal, Ray asserted that the district court erred by admitting uncharged misconduct evidence as res gestae, witness- and victim-fear evidence, victim-impact evidence during the guilt phase of trial, and positive evidence of the homicide victims’ characters. He also asserted that the prosecution engaged in numerous instances of misconduct, which violated his right to a fair trial. He further contended that the district court erred by denying his request to subpoena jurors to investigate allegations of juror misconduct during deliberations. And finally, he challenged his sentences of life without the possibility of parole as unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment.
The supreme court concluded that although the district court erred in some ways, none of those errors, individually or cumulatively, warranted reversal. Similarly, although some of the prosecution’s comments were improper, none of them constituted reversible misconduct. The court further concluded that the district court properly denied inquiry into alleged juror misconduct under CRE 606(b). And lastly, the court held that Ray’s sentences are constitutional.
The court therefore affirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence.
In this direct appeal, Ray asserted that the district court erred by admitting uncharged misconduct evidence as res gestae, witness- and victim-fear evidence, victim-impact evidence during the guilt phase of trial, and positive evidence of the homicide victims’ characters. He also asserted that the prosecution engaged in numerous instances of misconduct, which violated his right to a fair trial. He further contended that the district court erred by denying his request to subpoena jurors to investigate allegations of juror misconduct during deliberations. And finally, he challenged his sentences of life without the possibility of parole as unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment.
The supreme court concluded that although the district court erred in some ways, none of those errors, individually or cumulatively, warranted reversal. Similarly, although some of the prosecution’s comments were improper, none of them constituted reversible misconduct. The court further concluded that the district court properly denied inquiry into alleged juror misconduct under CRE 606(b). And lastly, the court held that Ray’s sentences are constitutional.
The court therefore affirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence.
In this direct appeal, Ray asserted that the district court erred by admitting uncharged misconduct evidence as res gestae, witness- and victim-fear evidence, victim-impact evidence during the guilt phase of trial, and positive evidence of the homicide victims’ characters. He also asserted that the prosecution engaged in numerous instances of misconduct, which violated his right to a fair trial. He further contended that the district court erred by denying his request to subpoena jurors to investigate allegations of juror misconduct during deliberations. And finally, he challenged his sentences of life without the possibility of parole as unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment.
The supreme court concluded that although the district court erred in some ways, none of those errors, individually or cumulatively, warranted reversal. Similarly, although some of the prosecution’s comments were improper, none of them constituted reversible misconduct. The court further concluded that the district court properly denied inquiry into alleged juror misconduct under CRE 606(b). And lastly, the court held that Ray’s sentences are constitutional.
The court therefore affirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence.