A man convicted of manslaughter in Denver will receive a new trial after the state’s second-highest court determined last month that a judge violated his constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him.

There was no dispute that Donte Carl Ellis physically attacked his mother’s boyfriend, Willie Caldwell, and that Caldwell later died of his injuries. Ellis claimed he was acting in defense of his mother, the alleged victim of domestic violence. Jurors acquitted Ellis of murder, but convicted him of reckless manslaughter. He received a sentence of six years in prison.

Ellis’ mother did not testify at trial, but the prosecution nonetheless questioned Ellis about statements his mother made previously to police. The mother’s message was that Ellis had not, in fact, acted to protect her, and instead “just went off” on Caldwell.

A three-judge panel for the Court of Appeals concluded the prosecution’s extensive use of the mother’s testimony was improper because the defense had no way of cross-examining her and letting jurors assess her credibility.

“And cross-examining the police officers or detectives would be ineffective and insufficient confrontation because law enforcement had no personal knowledge of whether mother told the truth about the events of that day or the reasons why she might have lied,” wrote Judge Sueanna P. Johnson in the panel’s Nov. 9 opinion.

Case: People v. Ellis

Decided: November 9, 2023

Jurisdiction: Denver

Ruling: 3-0

Judges: Sueanna P. Johnson (author)

John Daniel Dailey

Katharine E. Lum

In February 2018, Ellis arrived at his mother’s apartment and noticed she had an eye injury. He stayed to watch a movie with his mother and Caldwell until his mother told him to leave. Ellis testified he then saw Caldwell slap his mother.

Ellis reacted by attacking Caldwell, kicking him until he stopped moving. While his mother called 911, Ellis went outside to wait for police. He told officers many times he “killed” and “wanted to kill” Caldwell. Caldwell died of his injuries weeks later.

In Ellis’ telling, his mother had long been abused by her boyfriends and Ellis tried to protect her. Caldwell allegedly assaulted her multiple times, but the mother refused medical treatment and would not speak with police. Ellis said that if he did not intervene after Caldwell’s alleged slap, “I probably would have been at my mom’s funeral instead of being in jail.”

Among the evidence, jurors saw an officer’s body-worn camera footage, but the audio of the mother’s statements to police was redacted. After Ellis testified about the slap and acknowledged he was familiar with what his mother told police, prosecutor Joe Morales asked Ellis about his mother’s statements. Effectively, the exchange illustrated to the jury that her story completely contradicted her son’s:

? “Your mom indicated in all those statements … that there were no problems between her and Willie Caldwell on the morning of Feb. 10, 2018, is that right?”

? “And that you were upset the minute you walked in the door?”

? “You would agree with me your mom says that at no point on Feb. 10, 2018 did William Caldwell put a hand on her?”

Although the defense objected to the hearsay testimony – meaning out-of-court statements intended to prove the truth – District Court Judge J. Eric Elliff allowed the jury to hear it. During closing arguments, Morales told jurors the mother’s testimony showed there was “no domestic violence” and Ellis “just went off the wheels and started punching and kicking” Caldwell.

On appeal, Ellis argued the prosecution violated his constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him. The Colorado Attorney General’s Office countered that jurors were not supposed to accept the mother’s statements as truth, but “merely to consider that she gave a different version of events.”

The Court of Appeals panel agreed Caldwell was deprived of his opportunity to ask his mother, under oath, why she made those statements and whether she was being truthful. Moreover, it would eviscerate Ellis’ claim that he was defending his mother if jurors believed what she told police.

“Essentially, the prosecutor was attempting to have introduced all of mother’s statement that the jury had not heard on the bodycam footage,” Johnson wrote.

Because jurors heard repeatedly, through the mother’s statements, that Ellis attacked Caldwell for no reason, the panel agreed the testimony could have affected the verdict. It ordered a new trial.

Following the decision, the government asked the panel to reconsider, arguing Ellis’ own testimony about assaulting Caldwell established that he committed reckless manslaughter, regardless of anything his mother said.

“Thus, there is no possibility whatsoever, much less a reasonable possibility, that any trial error contributed to Defendant’s conviction,” wrote Assistant Attorney General Josiah Beamish.

The case is People v. Ellis.