The People of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David Allen Rhoads, Defendant-Appellant. (2023)

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED

¶ 1 Defendant, David Allen Rhoads, appeals the judgment of conviction entered on a jury verdict finding him guilty of first degree murder. We affirm.

I. Evidence Presented at Trial

¶ 2 According to video surveillance and witness testimony presented at trial, Rhoads let the victim, Robert Maples, into his motel room shortly after midnight. At 12:45 a.m., Maples exited the room and sprinted down the hallway, alerting the front desk attendant as he passed, “he's got a gun, he [sic] got a gun.” Rhoads followed five seconds later, carrying an object that resembled a gun in his right hand.

¶ 3 Around that time, two witnesses in a nearby parking lot saw and/or heard two men arguing shortly before hearing one or more gunshots. At 12:49 a.m., one of those witnesses called 911 and reported that one man had shot the other and the victim — later identified as Maples — was lying in the road. At trial, both witnesses testified that they saw the suspected shooter moving toward the motel after the gunshots.

¶ 4 Between 12:50 and 12:51 a.m., motel video surveillance recorded Rhoads entering the motel and returning to his room with nothing in his hands.

¶ 5 Police arrived where Maples was lying in the road at about 12:51 a.m. He had been shot in the head, but he was still alive. After he was transported to the hospital, a deputy sheriff secured the crime scene and searched for evidence. At trial, the deputy testified that homeless people in the area had directed her to a purple gun about forty feet away from where Maples had been lying in the road, and this testimony was corroborated by her body cam footage. The deputy also testified that she located a bullet casing near Maples.

¶ 6 The purple gun and bullet casing from the crime scene were collected as evidence. The gun was swabbed and tested for DNA, then the casing was compared to casings from samples test-fired from that gun. A forensic DNA analyst testified at trial that the only discernable DNA profile on (1) the gun grip, slide, and trigger; (2) the magazine; and (3) the bullets in the magazine all matched Rhoads's DNA profile — a profile with an estimated frequency of one in 4.9 nonillion. And a forensic firearms examiner testified that the crime scene bullet casing had been fired from the purple gun.

¶ 7 A digital forensics examiner located a screen shot of a similar purple gun on a phone that had been seized from Rhoads's motel room. And a forensic pathologist testified that Robert Maples died three days after the shooting, as a result of a gunshot wound to the head.

¶ 8 After the prosecution presented this evidence and more, it rested. The defense did not present any witnesses. After deliberating for no more than a few hours, the jury found Rhoads guilty of first degree murder.

II. Evidence Not Presented at Trial

¶ 9 During opening remarks, defense counsel argued that Rhoads did not have a motive to kill Maples. He suggested that the defense would show that “several individuals” had a motive to kill Maples because Maples had recently testified against two named prisoners. The prosecution objected, and the court ruled that the defense could not present an alternate suspect defense because it had not endorsed such a defense before trial.

¶ 10 The parties revisited this issue three more times during the proceedings. As we understand the defense attorney's position, they did not want to name an alternate suspect; they merely sought to introduce evidence that Maples had received recent threats (from people other than Rhoads) as a result of his testimony against two accused murderers. During their final discussion, the district court ruled that it would allow cross-examination of the prosecution's investigator about his (1) initial impression of the murder as a witness killing, and (2) failure to find any motive for Rhoads to kill Maples. The defense did not follow these approved lines of inquiry.

¶ 11 Nonetheless, Rhoads contends that the district court abused its discretion by excluding admissible evidence relevant to his defense. We are not persuaded.

III. Discussion

¶ 12 The parties’ briefs overlook the final relevant discussion on the admissibility of the defense's proffered evidence. But even if the district court had fully excluded evidence of recent threats against Maples as a prosecution witness, and even assuming that the exclusion was erroneous under CRE 401 and CRE 403, we would find no reversible error because the prosecution presented overwhelming evidence of Rhoads's guilt.

¶ 13 A defendant has a constitutional right to present a complete defense. Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319, 324 (1986). Consistent with this right, a defendant may present evidence tending to show that another person might have committed the charged offense. Id. at 327. This is a limited right, governed by established rules allowing exclusion of relevant evidence when the “probative value is substantially outweighed by ․ confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury ․” CRE 403; see People v. Elmarr, 2015 CO 53, ¶ 25.

¶ 14 The probative value of this type of evidence is minimal when, as here, a reasonable fact finder could not find a reasonable doubt as to the identity of the perpetrator. Cf. Ruibal v. People, 2018 CO 93, ¶¶ 20-22. And any error in excluding evidence of another possible perpetrator is certainly harmless when, as here, the properly received physical, digital, and testimonial evidence of Rhoads's guilt — as described in Part I — is overwhelming. See Pernell v. People, 2018 CO 13, ¶ 25.

¶ 15 We perceive no reversible error.

IV. Disposition

¶ 16 The judgment is affirmed. Those portions of the judgment not challenged on appeal remain undisturbed.

Opinion by CHIEF JUDGE ROMÁN

Davidson* and Taubman *, JJ., concur JUDGE DAVIDSON and JUDGE TAUBMAN concur.