Background
A jury convicted Jean-Joseph Danger LeChiffre of first degree murder, conspiracy to commit first degree murder, and second degree assault for the killing of his father, Gilbert Sandoval. The prosecution’s evidence included testimony from LeChiffre’s mother, Marcella Sandoval, who had pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit accessory to a crime in exchange for probation and cooperation. She testified that she and LeChiffre planned the killing because of the victim’s abuse, the pending divorce, and estate-related disputes.
Sandoval testified that she lured the victim to her home, signaled LeChiffre as they went to the basement, and that LeChiffre struck the victim with a baseball bat before cutting Sandoval’s hands to support a self-defense account. Other evidence included a friend’s testimony about LeChiffre’s behavior after the killing, jailhouse testimony that LeChiffre admitted the killing, and blood-spatter testimony undermining Sandoval’s initial self-defense story. LeChiffre denied killing his father and suggested his brother was responsible.
The Court’s Holding
The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that LeChiffre waived his public-trial claim concerning the exclusion of people under eighteen, including his children, because defense counsel did not contemporaneously object. Following a remand to reconstruct the record, the trial court expressly found that no objection had been made; counsel’s failure to object constituted waiver even if LeChiffre wanted counsel to object.
The court also found no reversible error in admitting testimony about an earlier argument between LeChiffre and his father over power-of-attorney authority. Even assuming CRE 404(b) applied, the testimony was independently relevant to motive—LeChiffre’s desire to control his father’s estate—and was not unfairly prejudicial. Although several prosecutorial questions improperly asked witnesses to comment on others’ truthfulness, the unobjected-to errors did not amount to plain error given the strong evidence of guilt, cumulative or limited responses, and LeChiffre’s answers supporting aspects of his defense.
Key Takeaways
- A known courtroom closure must be contemporaneously challenged; counsel’s failure to object waives the public-trial claim on appeal.
- Evidence of an earlier family conflict may be admissible when it independently establishes a material motive rather than character-based propensity.
- “Were they lying” questions are improper, but unpreserved misconduct warrants reversal only when it substantially undermines trial fairness and the conviction’s reliability.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the practical consequences of failing to object to a courtroom closure at trial, even where the defendant personally wanted an objection. It also illustrates that appellate courts will distinguish between improper prosecutorial questioning and plain error requiring a new trial, particularly when the record contains substantial independent evidence of guilt.