Editor’s Note: Law Week Colorado edits court opinion summaries for style and, when necessary, length.
Olave, et al. v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company
Perla Olave owned a house in Thornton, Colorado, that was insured by American Family Mutual Insurance Co., S.I. Starting in late 2017, Olave began spending a majority of her time in Missouri. Starting in March 2018, she allowed the family of her brother, Jamie Darci Olave-Hernandez, to live in the house.
In September 2020, the house was damaged by fire. Olave had last stayed there in December 2019, and she hadn’t spent a day in Colorado in 2020.
American Family denied Olave’s and Olave-Hernandez’s claims under the insurance policy on the ground that Olave didn’t reside in the house at the time of the fire and had not complied with the policy’s requirement to notify American Family of her change in residence.
Olave and Olave-Hernandez challenged American Family’s decision in court. The district court granted summary judgment to American Family. Olave and Olave-Hernandez appealed.
The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed.
On Sept. 7, 1998, five people were murdered during shootings at two different residences in Aurora, Colorado. Eyewitnesses reported two armed individuals at both sites, with two additional companions present outside the scene of the first shooting.
It is undisputed that Michael Martinez, a friend of petitioner Alexander Pogosyan, was one of the shooters at both locations, according to the opinion. According to the prosecution, Alexander Pogosyan was the second shooter and his brother, Roman Pogosyan, and friend, Artur Martirorsyan, were the two other individuals outside the first shooting.
In support of its case, the state introduced a videotaped interview of Martirosyan, in which he described the days’ events and identified Alexander Pogosyan as the second shooter. Given that Martirosyan had disappeared by the time of the trial, the recording was admitted as a statement against penal interest.
Alexander Pogosyan objected to the introduction of the interview as violative of his confrontation clause rights under the Sixth Amendment. His objection was overruled, and he was unsuccessful in his state court appeals.
Alexander Pogosyan asserted the confrontation clause claim in his application for a writ of habeas corpus. Applying the standard of review outlined in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, the district court determined the Colorado Court of Appeals contravened clearly established Supreme Court precedent in ruling Martirosyan’s interview was sufficiently reliable to overcome constitutional concern.
The district court determined the absence of particularized guarantees of trustworthiness in Martirosyan’s statement compromised Alexander Pogosyan’s Sixth Amendment rights, but it concluded that the appeals court’s error was harmless.
The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals held that any confrontation clause error didn’t have a “substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict.”
The 10th Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court.