Contact Us
Please fill out the form below and one of our attorneys will contact you.
Office Location
Reviews & Ratings
- posted: Nov. 06, 2024
- Criminal Defense, Legal Reform, Civil Rights
Domestic violence prosecutions often stem from situations where the alleged victim and the accused have a long, complicated relationship history. With this in mind, it is important that defendants in these cases are allowed to exercise their fundamental rights, including the right to confront their accuser and introduce exculpatory evidence. In a recent case, the Colorado Court of Appeals reversed a trial judge’s ruling that restricted a domestic violence defendant from raising information regarding the accuser’s potential motivation.
In People v. Gurule, defendant Richel Lee Gurule was convicted for an incident involving a woman with whom she’d once had a romantic relationship. Gurule claimed that she was acting in self-defense. As part of her case, Gurule wanted to raise previous situations where the accuser had broken the law and lied to authorities.
When the accuser made her complaint, she was facing a felony drug charge in Wyoming. Shortly after the incident, she pleaded guilty and was sentenced to probation. Prosecutors did agree that Gurule’s lawyers could mention the conviction to jurors. However, the trial court prevented defense lawyers from bringing up the fact that the accuser had lied to police years earlier about her name and date of birth in order to evade arrest on outstanding warrants.
Furthermore, Gurule was not able to tell jurors that her former partner was still on probation for the drug conviction. In her appeal, Gurule’s attorneys noted that in a domestic violence case where both parties claim that the other was the aggressor, someone on probation might be motivated to contact police first, or make false claims, to avoid a charge that could result in the revocation of their probationary status.
The appellate panel sided with Gurule, reversing her conviction and sending the case back to the trial court. Their decision, written by Judge Matthew D. Grove, noted that it was not necessary to show that the accuser’s testimony was definitely influenced by her desire to avoid a potential probation violation. Rather, evidence of the accuser’s probationary status could be introduced even if it only possibly affected what she said to police and on the stand.
Any type of criminal prosecution can raise difficult issues about the balance between the rights of the accused and the desire to guard against unnecessary victim-shaming. These conflicts are even more likely in domestic violence cases where there is a higher probability that the defendant will claim that the accuser triggered the incident. There can also be instances where someone makes a domestic violence complaint for improper reasons, such as to express anger over a relationship problem.
Polansky Law Firm is well versed in the complications that exist in domestic violence defense cases. Located in Boulder, our firm protects the right of accused individuals across Colorado. Please call 303-415-2583 or contact us online to schedule a free consultation.
