Colorado’s second-highest court on Thursday declined to apply a major state Supreme Court decision retroactively and enable more people to challenge their criminal convictions.

In 2022, the Supreme Court issued Rojas v. People – a decision that eliminated a “troublesome relic” from the rules of evidence. Known as the “res gestae” doctrine, it enabled prosecutors to introduce evidence of a defendant’s other, uncharged misconduct. 

The goal of such other-acts evidence was to provide context for a person’s motive or plan to commit the offense they were on trial for. However, the doctrine instead became “a catchall for admitting all sorts of misdeeds and character evidence,” wrote Justice William W. Hood III in the Rojas opinion, with a danger that jurors would convict someone due to their “bad character.”

The question presented recently to the Court of Appeals was whether Rojas laid down a “watershed” rule giving convicted defendants the ability to challenge their convictions from years in the past, now that certain evidence would not be acceptable.

A three-judge appellate panel said no.

Case: People v. Cooper

Decided: November 30, 2023

Jurisdiction: Montrose County

Ruling: 3-0

Judges: David H. Yun (author)

Rebecca R. Freyre

W. Eric Kuhn

Background: COVER STORY | While SCOTUS term rocks country, Colorado Supreme Court racks up quiet accomplishments

Clinton Cooper stood trial twice in Montrose County for sexually assaulting a child. The first trial featured a deadlocked jury and the second resulted in Clinton’s conviction. Jurors heard evidence of Cooper, months after the assault, trying to look at a different child through her bedroom window.

The Court of Appeals originally upheld Cooper’s conviction in 2019, after which it became final. Cooper later filed a motion for post-conviction relief, alleging he received ineffective assistance from counsel. Right before the hearing, the Supreme Court decided Rojas.

Cooper then argued the new rule eliminating res gestae evidence should apply retroactively to his case, and to the testimony about Cooper spying on another child. District Court Judge Keri A. Yoder disagreed, saying the change to the rules of evidence did not amount to “one of the rare and small watershed core rules that call into question the Defendant’s underlying conviction.”

On appeal, Cooper contended the disputed evidence affected his right to a fair trial, and the Supreme Court had done something significant by abandoning a concept that dated to the 19th century. The Colorado Attorney General’s Office, in contrast, called Rojas a “clarification,” not a “landscape-altering groundbreaker.”

The Court of Appeals panel agreed with the government that Clinton could not challenge his already-final conviction under Rojas because the case did not re-interpret constitutional law.

“Our conclusion that Rojas is not a ‘new constitutional rule’ is fatal to Cooper’s claim,” wrote Judge David H. Yun on Nov. 30.

Although Rojas did not bar other-acts evidence entirely going forward, it provided clearer guardrails for when juries should hear it.

Recently, the Supreme Court accepted a pair of cases seeking to clarify whether another of its major decisions amounted to a new constitutional rule that applies retroactively. Two defendants serving lengthy sentences under Colorado’s “three strikes” law are seeking to expand a 2019 decision that directed judges how to evaluate the proportionality of criminal punishments.

Unlike the Rojas decision, the Supreme Court’s ruling on proportionality repeatedly made reference to constitutional requirements.

The case is People v. Clinton.