You might be surprised to learn that your conviction could be reversed and your case and sentence vacated.
- Did witness testimony, alleged victim testimony, affidavits, so-called evidence of prior bad acts, acts that you were neither charged with nor convicted of playing a role in your criminal case conviction?
- Were you accused of having a bad character? Were you accused of having committed other prior acts labeled as bad acts – offenses that are irrelevant to the charges you are currently facing or fighting in post-conviction?
- Did the prosecution succeed with having this type of evidence admitted into your trial or used as leverage to execute a plea?
If yes to any of the above, please read on…
What is Res Gestae?
Res Gestae is the legal principle regarding secondhand statements made spontaneously and contemporaneously with an event and is used as evidence against a defendant. Blacks Law Dictionary defines ‘Res Gestae’ as follows:
Res Gestae (rays jes-tee also jes-ti) n. pl. [Latin “things done”] (17c) The events at issue, or other events contemporaneous with them. • In evidence law, words and statements about the res gestae are usually admissible under a hearsay exception (such as present sense impression or excited utterance). Where the Federal Rules of Evidence or state rules fashioned after them are in effect, the use of res gestae is now out of place. See Fed. R. Evid. 803(1), (2). — Also termed res gesta.
RES GESTAE, Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019)
This principle, as it regards statements used as evidence against a defendant, is widely being abolished by states across the nation.
In QNav’s home state of Colorado, the Supreme Court of Colorado case of Rojas v. People, 504 P.3d 296 put the final nail in the coffin of the abusive res gestae applications throughout district courts and the court of appeals. The Rojas court abolished the Res Gestae rule and reversed a defendant’s criminal conviction, remanding the case to the trial court with further instructions.
This doctrine has been abolished in Colorado with this case as its foundation. Approximately 37 other states have either completely or partially abolished the doctrine of res gestae and opened a floodgate available to many criminal defendants to possibly review their cases with possible relief opportunities because such inadmissible evidence was used and ultimately led to a conviction.
Caution, however, is called for. While cases are dribbling in, the case facts are especially important when determining whether a defendant possesses proper standing to even bring a claim.
Conservative, and perhaps accurate, thinking in Colorado and many state courts and the feds is that retroactivity of res gestae abolishment and the attending benefits of Rojas will be limited to cases that are still on direct appeal or (and this is key) where evidenced justifiable excuse, excusable neglect, and extreme discretionary judicial leniency (particularly for the incarcerated indigent prisoner filing pro se). The record will probably be required to show proper objections preserved.
Further, we at QNav believe that the salient and winnable argument is due process, somewhat like this. A post-conviction claim would likely need to be grounded in arguments of fundamental fairness under state and federal due process grounds of “denial of fundamental fairness”.
This is where QNAV comes in. We will analyze your case and determine whether any inadmissible statements and/or documentary evidence may have been entered unlawfully under the now often-abolished doctrine of res gestae, and which adversely affected the outcome of your case.
This sweeping change regarding upholding the doctrine of res gestae has come about as the feds and many states continue to leave behind what can be considered as relic legal principles from the common law era. Statutory law is now the common reliance of most state and federal courts. Many governments are moving further away from the use of res gestae as they hold that its reasonings for the supposed reliability of evidence is a falsity and is unfair to criminal defendants.
Prosecutors in Colorado, like many in state and federal courts, regularly employ 404(b) evidence to show how an accused defendant probably committed the current acts being charged. While imperfect, the rules require protection devices and shields that are not present in res gestae evidentiary admissions. In our experience, the worst possible outcomes are when an accused is not afforded the protection shields of 404(b) but rather has to defend himself from res gestae evidence parading as 404(b); often well camouflaged by capable prosecutors – far more crafty than most defense lawyers.
So, please let us take a look at your case to determine if there was any impermissible hearsay or documentary evidence used.
Was Res Gestae Evidence a Key Player in Your Conviction?
If there is any way that you may have relief under case or statutory authorities that restrict such use of evidence, we will find it. Once a determination has been made that statements were admitted under the mostly abolished doctrine of res gestae, the process(s) of petitioning for a remedy is/are quite simple and straightforward. And because res gestae evidence can be so powerful toward suggesting a defendant’s supposed guilt, often getting any such inadmissible statements revoked will become the key postconviction driver. This will likely take center stage in many cases nationwide, maybe even yours.
We would be honored to review your case and circumstances. Mitigation in matters such as res gestae and often 404(b) [even ‘reverse 404(b)’] can generate the necessary “case facts”, which just might turn the table in your favor – finally.
Please remember that at QNav, it costs nothing to talk – nothing to take a closer look.