Automated Summary
Key Facts
Defendant Christopher John Matthews appealed a district court's judgment of conviction for second-degree murder. The incident occurred when Matthews and victim Tanner Banderet met at a gas station for a cocaine transaction. During the exchange, Banderet reached for Matthews' gun, prompting Matthews to shoot and kill Banderet. Matthews later disposed of evidence and fled Colorado before turning himself in. The jury found him guilty of second-degree murder (a lesser included offense from the charged first-degree murder). The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, rejecting Matthews' appeals regarding evidence admission and heat of passion jury instructions.
Issues
- The defendant argues that the district court erred by admitting a recording of a jail phone call between him and a friend in violation of Colorado Rule of Evidence 404(b), as the court did not undertake the required People v. Spoto analysis. The court determined the evidence was admissible either under the specific contradiction rule (contradicting the witness's testimony) or to show consciousness of guilt (attempting to influence a witness), making it admissible independent of CRE 404(b) analysis.
- The defendant contends the district court erred by refusing to give the jury a heat of passion instruction. The appellate court concludes the district court applied the wrong test—evaluating whether the prosecution disproved the mitigator rather than whether there was some supporting evidence. While the correct test was applied, the court finds no credible evidence supporting that the provoking act was serious and highly provoking, or sufficient to excite an irresistible passion in a reasonable person.
Holdings
The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment of conviction for second degree murder. The court held that the jail phone call recording was properly admitted as evidence showing consciousness of guilt and to contradict witness testimony, and that the district court correctly refused to give a heat of passion instruction because there was insufficient evidence supporting the required elements of sudden heat of passion caused by a serious and highly provoking act.
Remedies
The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the Adams County District Court's judgment of conviction for second degree murder, rejecting the appellant's contentions regarding evidence admissibility and jury instructions.
Legal Principles
- The defendant argued self-defense or sudden provocation as his defense theory. The court analyzed whether there was sufficient evidence to support a heat of passion instruction under section 18-3-103(3)(b), C.R.S. 2025. The court concluded there was no credible evidence that the provocation was serious and highly provoking or sufficient to excite an irresistible passion in a reasonable person.
- The prosecution must disprove the heat of passion mitigator's elements beyond a reasonable doubt once the defendant establishes some supporting evidence. The four elements are: (1) sudden heat of passion, (2) serious and highly provoking act by the victim, (3) sufficient to excite irresistible passion in a reasonable person, and (4) insufficient interval of time for reason to be heard.
- The court analyzed whether a recording of a jail phone call between the defendant and a friend was admissible under CRE 404(b). The court held that the evidence wasn't subject to CRE 404(b) because it didn't show a propensity to commit murder, but was admissible to show consciousness of guilt and to contradict witness testimony. The court also applied CRE 401 (relevance), CRE 402 (admissibility of relevant evidence), and CRE 403 (probative value versus unfair prejudice).
- The court explained that once a defendant is entitled to a heat of passion instruction, the prosecution bears the burden to disprove one or more of the mitigator's elements beyond a reasonable doubt. The court clarified that the district court erred by evaluating whether the prosecution disproved the mitigator rather than whether there was some evidence supporting the mitigator's elements.
Precedent Name
- Cassels v. People
- People v. Spoto
- People v. Sepulveda
- Rojas v. People
Cited Statute
Colorado Revised Statutes 2025
Judge Name
- J. Jones, Court of Appeals Judge who wrote the opinion
- Honorable Rayna Gokli McIntyre, Adams County District Court Judge
- Judge Schutz, Court of Appeals Judge who concurred
- Judge Grove, Court of Appeals Judge who concurred
Passage Text
- we conclude that Matthews didn't show that there was some credible evidence supporting at least two of the above elements — that the preceding act was (2)serious and highly provoking and (3) sufficient to excite an irresistible passion in a reasonable person to kill the victim.
- And the evidence was admissible to show consciousness of guilt. Evidence showing consciousness of guilt is admissible to show the defendant's commission of the offense. And such evidence includes evidence of threatening, intimidating, or attempting to influence a witness.
- Defendant, Christopher John Matthews, appeals the district court's judgment of conviction entered on a jury's verdict finding him guilty of second degree murder. We affirm.