Colorado v. Roldan

Annotate this Case

The State appealed the Court of Appeals' reversal of defendant's convictions for theft by receiving and his sentence to three years' probation. The appellate court concluded the trial court abused its discretion in denying a challenge for cause on the grounds of juror bias, and that defendant removed the juror with a peremptory challenge and then exhausted his remaining peremptory challenges. The appellate court reversed noting the Supreme Court's rule of automatic reversal, as explained in "Colorado v. Macrander" (828 P.2d 234 (1992)). The State petitioned the Supreme Court solely to request reconsideration of automatic reversal under these circumstances. Because the Court of Appeals relied on the bright-line automatic reversal rule of "Macrander," rather than evaluating the likely effect of the trial court's error on the outcome of the specific case in which it occurred, the Supreme Court reversed the appellate court and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of this holding.

Download PDF

Opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court are available to the public and can be accessed through the Court s homepage at http://www.courts.state.co.us. Opinions are also posted on the Colorado Bar Association homepage at www.cobar.org. ADVANCE SHEET HEADNOTE April 7, 2014 2014 CO 22 No. 11SC100, People v. Roldan Criminal Law Jury. The People petitioned for review of the court of appeals judgment in People v. Roldan, ___ P.3d ___, ___, No. 08CA2487 (Colo. App. Jan. 20, 2011), in which that court reversed Roldan s conviction for theft by receiving and his sentence to three years probation. Upon concluding that the trial court abused its discretion in denying a challenge for cause on the grounds of juror bias, and that the defendant removed the prospective juror in question with a peremptory challenge and subsequently exhausted his remaining peremptory challenges, a majority of the division reversed, noting this court s rule of automatic reversal in People v. Macrander, 828 P.2d 234, 244 (Colo. 1992). The supreme court reversed because the court of appeals relied on the brightline, automatic reversal rule of Macrander, which has now been overruled, and remanded the case to apply the outcome-determinitive standard set forth in People v. Novotny, 2014 CO 18. The Supreme Court of the State of Colorado 2 East 14th Avenue ¢ Denver, Colorado 80203 2014 CO 22 Supreme Court Case No. 11SC100 Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals Court of Appeals Case No. 08CA2487 Petitioner: The People of the State of Colorado, v. Respondent: Daniel Lee Roldan. Judgment Reversed en banc April 7, 2014 Attorneys for Petitioner: John W. Suthers, Attorney General Christine C. Brady, Senior Assistant Attorney General Denver, Colorado Attorneys for Respondent: Douglas K. Wilson, Public Defender Stephen C. Arvin, Deputy Public Defender Denver, Colorado JUSTICE COATS delivered the Opinion of the Court. JUSTICE HOOD dissents, and JUSTICE HOBBS joins in the dissent. ¶1 The People petitioned for review of the court of appeals judgment in People v. Roldan, ___ P.3d ___, ___, No. 08CA2487 (Colo. App. Jan. 20, 2011), in which that court reversed Roldan s conviction for theft by receiving and his sentence to three years probation. Upon concluding that the trial court abused its discretion in denying a challenge for cause on the grounds of juror bias, and that the defendant removed the prospective juror in question with a peremptory challenge and subsequently exhausted his remaining peremptory challenges, a majority of the division reversed, noting this court s rule of automatic reversal in People v. Macrander, 828 P.2d 234, 244 (Colo. 1992). Judge Bernard filed a separate opinion, specially concurring and expressly soliciting our reconsideration of the requirement for automatic reversal under these circumstances. The People petitioned solely on this ground. ¶2 In People v. Novotny, 2014 CO 18, ¶ 27, we overruled the automatic reversal rule announced in Macrander, holding that the reversal of a criminal conviction for other than structural error, in the absence of express legislative mandate or an appropriate case specific, outcome-determinative analysis, could no longer be sustained. We further found that allowing a defendant fewer peremptory challenges than authorized by statute or rule does not, in and of itself, amount to structural error. Id. ¶3 Because the court of appeals relied on the bright-line, automatic reversal rule of Macrander, rather than evaluating the likely effect of the trial court s error on the outcome of the specific case in which it occurred, and because the automatic reversal requirement of Macrander has now been overruled, the judgment of the court of 2 appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for reconsideration in light of our holding in Novotny. JUSTICE HOOD dissents, and JUSTICE HOBBS joins in the dissent. 3 JUSTICE HOOD, dissenting. ¶4 In People v. Novotny, 2014 CO 18, ¶ 27, this court overturned the automaticreversal rule of People v. Macrander, 828 P.2d 234 (Colo. 1992), and replaced it with an appropriate case specific, outcome-determinative analysis. I dissented, in part because I am convinced that Novotny substitutes Macrander s rule mandating automatic reversal with a rule seeming to mandate automatic affirmance. See Novotny, ¶ 31 (Hood, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). For the same reasons articulated in that dissent, I respectfully dissent here as well. I am authorized to state that JUSTICE HOBBS joins in the dissent. 1

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.