Editor’s Note: Law Week Colorado edits court opinion summaries for style and, when necessary, length.
Robert Feldman and the victim were married and had two children. Feldman drove the children to Sunday School on March 1, 2015. The victim had planned to pick them up at noon but never showed up.
Shortly after, Feldman picked the children up and took them to the carnival. Upon their return home, Feldman called 911 to report that he had found the victim unconscious in the bathtub with the shower running.
An autopsy revealed that the victim had sustained almost all of the injuries before death and had a number of chronic health conditions. The pathologist was unable to determine the cause and manner of the victim’s death.
Several months later, police received a call from S.M., who told them she had engaged in an extramarital affair with Feldman before the victim died and provided police with information about the victim and Feldman’s relationship.
The police took additional steps to investigate the death as a homicide, including consulting Dr. William Smock, a medical expert who opined that the victim had died from a combination of strangulation and suffocation.
Feldman was charged and convicted of first-degree murder.
Feldman appealed, arguing the district court erred in four ways and that the cumulative effect of the alleged errors warrants reversal.
He first argued that Smock’s testimony usurped the county coroner’s sole authority to determine the cause and manner of the victim’s death, which he argued violated either the subdelegation doctrine or the separation of powers doctrine. The Colorado Court of Appeals found no constitutional violation.
Next, he argued that Smock’s opinions were inadmissible expert testimony. The appeals court found that Smock’s expert testimony was admissible because his testimony was relevant and reliable, and he was qualified to opine on the cause and manner of the victim’s death based on his extensive medical experience.
He also asserted that the district court abused its discretion by denying defense counsel’s motion for a mistrial after the jury heard inadmissible testimony. The appeals court concluded that though the testimony wasn’t admissible, it didn’t warrant a mistrial.
His fourth argument was that the district court abused its discretion by admitting improper testimony about his character. The appeals court disagreed.
Because it found no errors, the cumulative error doctrine didn’t apply.
The appeals court affirmed.