People v. Mojica-Simental

22 Citing cases

  1. Cropper v. People

    251 P.3d 434 (Colo. 2011)   Cited 20 times
    Noting that lawyers are expected to know the rules of procedure

    . Although this right is fundamental, it is not without limit, People v. Mojica-Simental, 73 P.3d 15, 19 (Colo. 2003), and can be waived, Melendez-Diaz, 129 S.Ct. at 2534 n. 3. A defendant's counsel may waive his client's confrontation right.

  2. Hinojos-Mendoza v. People

    169 P.3d 662 (Colo. 2007)   Cited 106 times
    Holding that a report was testimonial because its sole purpose was to analyze a substance in anticipation of criminal prosecution

    In 2003, we upheld the facial constitutionality of section 16-3-309(5), concluding that the statute does not violate the right to confrontation guaranteed by the United States and Colorado Constitutions. People v. Mojica-Simental, 73 P.3d 15 (Colo. 2003). We explained in Mojica-Simental that while the right to confront one's accusers is a fundamental constitutional right, it is not without limit.

  3. State v. Belvin

    986 So. 2d 516 (Fla. 2008)   Cited 20 times
    Concluding that an affidavit prepared by a non-testifying technician constituted testimonial hearsay for purposes of the Confrontation Clause

    Hinojos-Mendoza relies upon our decision in Mojica-Simental to argue that section 16-3-309(5) is unconstitutional as applied in his case because he did not voluntarily, knowingly, and intentionally waive his fundamental right to confrontation. [People v. Mojica-Simental, 73 P.3d 15 (Colo. 2003).]

  4. State v. Belvin

    No. SC06-593 (Fla. May. 1, 2008)   Cited 1 times

    Hinojos-Mendoza relies upon our decision in Mojica-Simental to argue that section 16-3-309(5) is unconstitutional as applied in his case because he did not voluntarily, knowingly, and intentionally waive his fundamental right to confrontation. [People v. Mojica-Simental, 73 P.3d 15 (Colo. 2003).]

  5. Coleman v. People

    169 P.3d 659 (Colo. 2007)

    Any party may request that such employee or technician testify in person at a criminal trial on behalf of the state before a jury or to the court, by notifying the witness and other party at least ten days before the date of such criminal trial. Coleman appealed, arguing that admission of the lab report in the second trial without the in-court testimony of the technician who prepared the report violated his right to confrontation under both the United States and Colorado Constitutions. Citing this Court's decision in People v. Mojica-Simental, 73 P.3d 15 (Colo. 2003), Coleman argued that section 16-3-309(5) was unconstitutional as applied in his case to allow admission of the lab report. In an unpublished opinion, the court of appeals rejected this argument.

  6. People v. Martinez

    254 P.3d 1198 (Colo. App. 2011)   Cited 4 times
    In People v. Martinez, 254 P.3d 1198, 1201 (Colo. App. 2011), a division of this court defined "the criminalistics laboratory" as "the forensic laboratory that performed the test, the results of which are being offered into evidence."

    The subject matter of section 16-3-309 is the "admissibility of laboratory test results" in any criminal case under various circumstances, as its title suggests. As described in People v. Mojica-Simental, 73 P.3d 15, 18 (Colo. 2003), the purpose of subsection (5) is to "streamline the trial process by admitting a report without the testimony of the technician in cases where the parties do not feel that the technician's testimony would be useful." Moreover, the legislative history for the section includes no discussion of the term "the criminalistics laboratory," nor does it include any indication that the General Assembly sought to limit the term to include only the CBI or other state-run criminalistics laboratories that are part of local law enforcement agencies.

  7. People v. Hill

    228 P.3d 171 (Colo. App. 2009)   Cited 24 times
    Declining to consider a bald legal proposition presented without argument or development

    In People v. Mojica-Simental, 73 P.3d 15, 18-19 (Colo. 2003), the supreme court held that when a defendant notifies the prosecution at least ten days before trial that he or she wants the laboratory technician present at trial, the request prevents the admission of the laboratory report without the foundational testimony of the appropriate, lab technician. The court stated that when a defendant wants to contest the reliability or accuracy of a lab test, a lab technician's presence is crucial to secure the defendant's right to confront the witnesses against him or her.

  8. People v. Hinojos-Mendoza

    140 P.3d 30 (Colo. App. 2006)   Cited 16 times
    In People v. Hinojos-Mendoza, 140 P.3d 30 (Colo.App. 2005)(cert. granted Aug. 14, 2006), a division of this court concluded that a laboratory report detailing the testing and weighing of cocaine was not "testimonial" within the meaning of that term as used in the constitutional confrontation analysis of Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004), and that it therefore was admissible as a business record pursuant to CRE 803(6) without the testimony of the technician who had conducted the testing.

    Under this statute, if the defendant does not give pretrial notice, the People may prove an element of the charge using a laboratory report either "by subpoenaing the [technician] and presenting her at trial, or by simply introducing the lab report." People v. Mojica-Simental, 73 P.3d 15, 18 (Colo. 2003); see People v. Moses, 64 P.3d 904, 908 (Colo.App. 2002) ("Forensic laboratory reports are admissible in criminal proceedings without establishing the usual foundation, absent a request that the technician be made available at trial.").

  9. People v. Cruthers

    124 P.3d 887 (Colo. App. 2005)   Cited 17 times
    Concluding that DUI is a lesser included offense of DUI vehicular assault but not addressing the difference between the traffic code's and the criminal code's definitions of motor vehicle

    Thus, the People may prove an element of the charge using a laboratory report either "by subpoenaing the [technician] and presenting her at trial, or by simply introducing the lab report." People v. Mojica-Simental, 73 P.3d 15, 18 (Colo. 2003). Here, the People indicated before trial that because defendant had not requested that the technician testify, they intended to introduce the laboratory report into evidence.

  10. People v. Adams

    384 P.3d 345 (Colo. 2016)

    ¶16 The plain language of these two statutes permits us to give effect to both provisions. A specific or local provision may apply to the exclusion of a general provision, but that rule only applies where “the conflict between the provisions is irreconcilable.” § 2–4–205 ; see also People v. Mojica–Simental, 73 P.3d 15, 18 (Colo. 2003) (“While we favor a more specific provision over a general one when there is conflict between statutory provisions, in the absence of such a conflict, we give effect to both statutes.”). Here, there is no such conflict.