People v. Beller

COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2016COA184

Court of Appeals No. 11CA1182
City and County of Denver District Court No. 10CR81
Honorable Edward D. Bronfin, Judge

The People of the State of Colorado,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

Peter Wilson Sund Beller,

Defendant-Appellant.

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED

Division IV
Opinion by JUDGE MILLER
Graham and J. Jones, JJ., concur

Announced December 29, 2016

Cynthia H. Coffman, Attorney General, John J. Fuerst III, Assistant Attorney
General, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Douglas K. Wilson, Colorado State Public Defender, Jason C. Middleton,
Deputy State Public Defender, Denver, Colorado, for Defendant-Appellant
¶1 Defendant, Peter Wilson Sund Beller,1 went to trial for felony

murder and two counts of aggravated robbery. The aggravated

robbery charges — along with the noncharged offenses of attempted

aggravated robbery, robbery, and attempted robbery — served as

predicate offenses underlying the felony murder count. The jury

acquitted Beller of both aggravated robbery counts but hung on the

felony murder count. The trial court held a second trial on the

felony murder count with robbery and attempted robbery serving as

predicate offenses. The second jury convicted Beller of felony

murder.

¶2 We are unaware of authority from the United States Supreme

Court or from Colorado directly controlling Beller’s argument that

his retrial for felony murder violated the Double Jeopardy Clause.

We ultimately conclude that it did not. We then conclude that

admitting a codefendant’s hearsay statements did not violate the

hearsay rules or our state Confrontation Clause. We therefore

affirm Beller’s felony murder conviction.

1The mittimus and papers filed in this court spell defendant’s last
name as Beller. At trial, however, defendant spelled his name
Bellar, and most of the papers filed in the trial court used that
spelling. For convenience, we adhere to the spelling used in the
mittimus and by the parties in this court.

1
 I. Background

¶3 Beller arranged to buy two ounces of marijuana through a

man named Justin Singleton. Singleton brought Beller to his

father’s house to complete the deal.

¶4 According to Singleton, he retrieved the two ounces of

marijuana from his father’s room and gave it to Beller. Beller then

pulled out a gun and demanded the rest of the marijuana in the

house. Singleton alerted his father that Beller had a gun.

Singleton’s father retrieved his own gun and walked into the

hallway. Several shots were fired and Singleton’s father fell to the

ground. Singleton grabbed a gun and started shooting; Beller fled.

¶5 Beller described a different version of these events. He said

his friend, Scott Shaffer, drove him to meet Singleton. Shaffer

stayed in the car when Beller got out and accompanied Singleton

and one of Singleton’s friends to a house. While Singleton

discussed the deal with his father in another room, Beller took out

$600, set it on a table, and walked towards the other room to

“haggle” with Singleton. As he walked he heard feet “shuffling,”

looked back, and saw Singleton’s friend running out the door; his

money was gone. Beller pulled out a gun to chase Singleton’s

2
 friend. Singleton saw the gun and ran into another room.

Singleton’s father then appeared and shot Beller in the chest.

Although Beller did not remember shooting his gun, he was “pretty

sure” he did. Singleton then shot at him, but he was able to run

out of the house. Shaffer took him to the hospital.

¶6 Beller shot Singleton’s father in the head during these events

and the father died as a result.

¶7 The People charged Beller with felony murder (with Singleton’s

father as the victim), two counts of aggravated robbery (with

Singleton and his father as victims), and menacing (with Singleton’s

friend as the victim). The trial court’s jury instructions identified

aggravated robbery, attempted aggravated robbery, robbery, and

attempted robbery as predicate offenses for the felony murder

count. The court also instructed the jury about the elements of

aggravated robbery, robbery, and attempt. The verdict forms on the

aggravated robbery counts did not permit the jury to consider any

lesser included offenses. The jury found Beller not guilty of both

aggravated robbery counts, guilty of menacing, and hung on the

felony murder count. The trial court declared a mistrial on the

felony murder count.

3
¶8 Before the second trial, Beller moved for a judgment of

acquittal on the felony murder count, arguing that the Double

Jeopardy Clause precluded another trial on that count. The trial

court denied Beller’s motion. In the second trial, the court’s

instructions identified only robbery and attempted robbery as

predicate offenses for felony murder, but those predicate offenses

were not charged as stand-alone offenses. The jury found Beller

guilty of felony murder.

II. Discussion

¶9 On appeal, Beller argues that his retrial for felony murder

violated the Double Jeopardy Clause. He also argues that the court

violated the hearsay rules and his confrontation rights by admitting

several of Shaffer’s hearsay statements.

A. Double Jeopardy

¶ 10 We review double jeopardy claims de novo. People v. Frye,

2014 COA 141, ¶ 30.

¶ 11 The Double Jeopardy Clause guarantees that no person shall

“be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or

limb.” U.S. Const. amend. V; accord Colo. Const. art. II, § 18. This

language embodies two rules bearing on this case. First, a

4
 defendant may not be subjected to successive prosecutions for the

same offense after an acquittal. Monge v. California, 524 U.S. 721,

727-28 (1998). Second, issue preclusion prevents the prosecution

from litigating again any issue that was necessarily decided by a

jury’s not guilty verdict in a prior trial. See Yeager v. United States,

557 U.S. 110, 119 (2009). Beller argues that both rules were

violated when he was retried for felony murder after the first jury

found him not guilty of aggravated robbery.

1. Successive Prosecutions for the Same Offense

¶ 12 Beller’s argument starts with his claim that felony murder and

all four original predicate offenses — aggravated robbery, attempted

aggravated robbery, robbery, and attempted robbery — are the

“same offense” for double jeopardy purposes. It is unclear whether

the People dispute this claim, but, in any event, we agree with it.

¶ 13 For double jeopardy purposes, “the test to be applied to

determine whether there are two offenses or only one, is whether

each provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not.”

Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304 (1932). By

definition, a greater offense and any lesser offense included in it are

the “same” for double jeopardy purposes. Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S.

5
 161, 168 (1977). A predicate felony is a lesser included offense of

the felony murder count it supports. Meads v. People, 78 P.3d 290,

295 (Colo. 2003). Robbery is a lesser included offense of aggravated

robbery. People v. Borghesi, 66 P.3d 93, 97 (Colo. 2003). And a

charged offense necessarily includes an attempt to commit the

charged offense. See Crim. P. 31(c). All of this means that the

felony murder count against Beller and all four original predicate

offenses were the same offense for double jeopardy purposes. We

now turn to whether Beller was subjected to successive

prosecutions.

¶ 14 The Double Jeopardy Clause, however, applies only if there

has been an event — an acquittal, for example — that terminates

the original jeopardy. Richardson v. United States, 468 U.S. 317,

325 (1984). The failure of the jury to reach a verdict, however, is

not an event that terminates jeopardy. Id. So a retrial following a

hung jury does not offend the Double Jeopardy Clause. Id. at 324.

¶ 15 Beller, however, focuses not on the first jury’s failure to agree

about felony murder but on its not guilty verdicts on the aggravated

robbery counts. He assigns two consequences to the not guilty

verdicts. First, he argues that the Double Jeopardy Clause

6
 precluded a second trial for the greater offense of felony murder

after a jury acquitted him of the lesser included aggravated robbery

counts. Second, he argues that the first jury’s verdicts acquitted

him of aggravated robbery and the lesser included offenses of

attempted aggravated robbery, robbery, and attempted robbery. As

a result, he continues, the Double Jeopardy Clause precluded

further litigation over his guilt or innocence of robbery or attempted

robbery, the predicate offenses in his second trial. We are not

persuaded.

¶ 16 Fatal to Beller’s arguments is the fact that the People

prosecuted him for felony murder and the aggravated robberies

through the same information in the same case. In our view, the

consequence of that fact is that Beller was not subjected to

successive prosecutions.

¶ 17 Arguing otherwise, Beller relies on cases, such as Brown, in

which a defendant was charged separately with crimes that

constituted the “same offense.” The defendant in Brown was

charged with and convicted of joyriding after he was caught driving

a stolen car. 432 U.S. at 162. He was later charged with and

pleaded guilty to auto theft for stealing the car. Id. at 162-63.

7
 Applying the Blockburger test, the Court concluded that joyriding

and auto theft constituted the same offense for double jeopardy

purposes. Id. at 168. This led the Court to further conclude that

the defendant had been twice placed in jeopardy for the same

offense. Id. at 169-70.

¶ 18 Because Brown involved separate prosecutions, it does not

address the situation before us, in which the People prosecuted

Beller for lesser and greater offenses in a single case through a

single information. The same is true of the other cases Beller relies

on that discuss separate prosecutions. See Illinois v. Vitale, 447

U.S. 410, 411-13 (1980) (juvenile was convicted of failing to reduce

speed to avoid an accident and was subsequently charged with

involuntary manslaughter); Harris v. Oklahoma, 433 U.S. 682, 682

(1977) (the defendant was convicted of felony murder and later

convicted under a separate information of a lesser included crime);

United States v. Gooday, 714 F.2d 80, 82 (9th Cir. 1983) (noting

that an “acquittal on the explicit charge therefore bars subsequent

indictment on the implicit lesser included offenses”).

¶ 19 Stronger support for Beller’s position is Wilson v. Czerniak,

355 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir. 2004). In Wilson, a jury acquitted the

8
 defendant of intentional murder yet hung on greater counts of

aggravated felony murder. Id. at 1152. The court concluded that

the Double Jeopardy Clause precluded trying the defendant again

for aggravated felony murder after he had been acquitted of the

lesser included offense. Id. at 1157. We agree with Beller that

Wilson suggests that he could not be retried for felony murder after

being acquitted of the aggravated robbery counts. But we are not

bound by a federal circuit court’s interpretation of the Federal

Constitution. See People v. Rossman, 140 P.3d 172, 176 (Colo. App.

2006).

¶ 20 We are persuaded not to follow Wilson’s interpretation of the

Double Jeopardy Clause for two reasons. First, the Wilson court

relied on Brown to support the proposition that “a criminal

defendant may not be retried for a crime following an acquittal or

conviction on a lesser included or greater inclusive offense.” 355

F.3d at 1154. But, as we discussed earlier, Brown, unlike Wilson

and this case, involved separate prosecutions. Yet the Wilson court

did not acknowledge this difference or explain why it should not

matter.

9
¶ 21 Second, in order for the defendant in Wilson to have been

found guilty of the greater offense of aggravated murder, each of the

elements of the lesser offense of the intentional murder count had

to have been established. Id. at 1155. Thus, trying the defendant

again on aggravated murder necessarily would have given the

prosecution a second chance to relitigate the elements of intentional

murder, one or more of which the jury had already found lacking.

See Brown, 432 U.S. at 165 (Double Jeopardy Clause protects the

accused from attempts to relitigate facts underlying prior acquittal).

In this case, however, Beller could have been found guilty of the

greater offense of felony murder without committing all of the

elements of aggravated robbery because aggravated robbery was not

the only predicate offense specified by the prosecution. For

example, the second jury could have found that Beller did not take

anything of value, but nonetheless attempted to commit simple

robbery — a predicate offense relied on by the prosecution in both

trials.

¶ 22 Shortly after Wilson, a different panel of the Ninth Circuit

concluded under similar circumstances that whether the relevant

greater and lesser offenses are part of the same indictment “makes

10
 all the difference” for double jeopardy purposes. United States v.

Jose, 425 F.3d 1237, 1242 (9th Cir. 2005). The defendants in Jose

were convicted of felony murder and predicate offenses. Id. at

1240. Their predicate offense convictions were affirmed and their

felony murder convictions reversed on appeal. Id. The Jose panel

rejected the defendants’ argument that the Double Jeopardy Clause

precluded retrial for felony murder, concluding that “final

convictions on the underlying predicate felonies do not trigger

double jeopardy protections against retrial of the greater offense

originally charged under the same indictment in the same trial.” Id.

at 1248.

¶ 23 We are mindful of two differences between Jose and this case.

First, in Jose the prosecution sought a retrial after an appeal; in

this case the prosecution sought a retrial after a hung jury.

Second, the defendants in Jose were convicted of lesser included

offenses; Beller was acquitted of lesser included offenses.

¶ 24 Neither difference renders Jose’s analysis inapplicable here.

Jeopardy continues “whether the retrial is precipitated by a hung

jury or a defendant’s successful reversal of conviction.” Id. at 1244.

And the Jose panel found insignificant for its purposes whether

11
 jeopardy terminated on one charge because of a conviction as

opposed to an acquittal. Id. at 1244-45. At bottom, this case

shares with Jose the features that the panel considered relevant:

“the greater and lesser included offenses were tried together under

the same indictment, jeopardy terminated as to one of the offenses,

but did not end on the charge sought to be retried.” Id. at 1245.

¶ 25 We agree with the panel’s analysis in Jose and apply it here to

conclude that jeopardy did not terminate on the felony murder

count after Beller’s first trial even though he was acquitted of

predicate offenses. And because jeopardy did not terminate on the

felony murder count, the Double Jeopardy Clause did not preclude

retrial on that count.

¶ 26 A division of the Court of Appeals of Arizona reached the same

conclusion in a similar case. See Lemke v. Rayes, 141 P.3d 407

(Ariz. Ct. App. 2006). As relevant here, the defendant in Lemke was

charged with felony murder with armed robbery as the predicate

offense and was also charged with armed robbery. Id. at 410-11.

The jury hung on the felony murder count and convicted the

defendant of theft, a lesser included offense of armed robbery. Id.

at 411. The Lemke division assumed that by convicting the

12
 defendant of theft and leaving blank the armed robbery verdict

form, the jury impliedly acquitted him of armed robbery. Id. at 412-

13. Nevertheless, the division ultimately concluded that the Double

Jeopardy Clause did not preclude another trial on the felony

murder count: “Even though we have deemed [the defendant’s]

jeopardy on the armed robbery offense as terminated based on the

concept of implied acquittal, the inability of the jury to reach a

verdict on the felony-murder count at his first trial means that [the

defendant’s] jeopardy as to that count never terminated.” Id. at

415; see also Lemke v. Ryan, 719 F.3d 1093, 1103-04 (9th Cir.

2013) (rejecting double jeopardy claim for same defendant on

petition for habeas corpus relief); Delgado v. Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 659

F.3d 1311, 1330-31 (5th Cir. 2011) (relying on Jose to reject double

jeopardy claim).

¶ 27 In addition, our conclusion accords with authority from the

United States Supreme Court and another division of this court.

The Supreme Court has declined to hold “that a determination of

guilt and punishment on one count of a multicount indictment

immediately raises a double jeopardy bar to continued prosecution

on any remaining counts that are greater or lesser included offenses

13
 of the charge just concluded.” Ohio v. Johnson, 467 U.S. 493, 501

(1984). A division of this court has also held that the Double

Jeopardy Clause allows retrial on a greater offense if the jury

deadlocks on that greater offense but convicts on a lesser included

offense. People v. Aguilar, 2012 COA 181, ¶¶ 21-22. Johnson and

Aguilar do not square with the principle underlying Beller’s

arguments — that an event terminating jeopardy on one count also

terminates jeopardy on any other count in the same case that

constitutes the “same offense” under Blockburger.

¶ 28 Contrary to Beller’s argument, we do not think Doubleday v.

People, 2016 CO 3, bolsters his case. In Doubleday, the supreme

court held that “to establish that a defendant has committed or

attempted to commit a predicate offense so as to support a felony

murder conviction, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable

doubt all elements of that predicate offense, including the

inapplicability of any properly asserted affirmative defense.” Id. at

¶ 26. As Beller concedes, Doubleday did not address “any double

jeopardy concerns.” For that reason, we decline Beller’s invitation

to attempt to apply the court’s reasoning in Doubleday to support

his double jeopardy arguments.

14
¶ 29 We note, however, that if the first jury had found Beller guilty

of felony murder while acquitting him on aggravated robbery,

Doubleday would not require reversal because the jury could have

based such a verdict on the predicates of simple robbery or

attempted simple robbery. See id. at ¶¶ 2, 22. That is precisely

what the second jury did in the retrial conducted during the

“continuation of the initial jeopardy” caused by the hung jury. See

Yeager, 557 U.S. at 118.

¶ 30 We also reject Beller’s argument that his acquittals for

aggravated robbery prevented further litigation as to his

commission of the predicate offenses of robbery and attempted

robbery in his second trial. True, “subjecting [a] defendant to

postacquittal factfinding proceedings going to guilt or innocence

violates the Double Jeopardy Clause.” Smalis v. Pennsylvania, 476

U.S. 140, 145 (1986). But in Smalis, unlike in this case, the

prosecution sought to resume trial on the same counts for which

the defendants had already secured acquittals. Id. at 144-45. For

that reason, we conclude that Smalis does not apply here, where

the People sought a second trial only on a count for which jeopardy

had not terminated.

15
 2. Issue Preclusion

¶ 31 The Double Jeopardy Clause embodies the doctrine of issue

preclusion, a doctrine providing “simply that when an issue of

ultimate fact has once been determined by a valid and final

judgment, that issue cannot again be litigated between the same

parties in any future lawsuit.” Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436, 443

(1970); see also Bravo-Fernandez v. United States, 580 U.S. ___, ___,

n.1, 137 S. Ct. 352, 356 n.1 (2016). In other words, the

prosecution may not relitigate any issue that a jury necessarily

decided through a not guilty verdict in a prior trial. Yeager, 557

U.S. at 119. An acquittal therefore might preclude retrial on counts

on which the same jury hangs. Id. at 125. The doctrine will not

apply, however, if “a rational jury could have grounded its verdict

upon an issue other than that which the defendant seeks to

foreclose from consideration.” Ashe, 397 U.S. at 444 (citation

omitted).

¶ 32 To determine what a jury necessarily decided, courts examine

the record of the prior proceeding, including the pleadings, the

evidence, the charge, and other relevant information. Yeager, 557

U.S. at 119-20. An unresolved count, however, is not “relevant”

16
 information: “the fact that a jury hangs is evidence of nothing —

other than, of course, that it has failed to decide anything.” Id. at

121, 125.

¶ 33 We disagree with Beller’s argument that the first jury’s not

guilty verdicts on the aggravated robbery counts necessarily

included a finding that he was not guilty of robbery and attempted

robbery, the predicate offenses in his second trial. The aggravated

robbery counts required proof that Beller committed robbery — that

he knowingly took “anything of value from the person or presence of

another by the use of force, threats, or intimidation” — and that

“during the act of robbery or immediate flight therefrom” he

knowingly wounded or struck the person robbed or any other

person with a deadly weapon. See §§ 18-4-301(1), 18-4-302(1)(b),

C.R.S. 2016.

¶ 34 The evidence at the first trial arguably conflicted about

whether Beller actually took marijuana from the victim’s home. So

the jury could have found Beller not guilty of the aggravated

robberies based on a finding that he did not take anything of value

from the victims. See § 18-4-301(1). The aggravated robbery

verdicts therefore did not necessarily resolve whether Beller

17
 attempted to rob the victims. Alternatively, the aggravated robbery

verdicts could have been the product of a finding that Beller did not

knowingly wound or strike the victim with a deadly weapon based

on Beller’s repeated testimony that he did not remember firing his

gun. See § 18-4-302(1)(b). And so the aggravated robbery verdicts

did not necessarily resolve whether Beller committed robbery. For

these reasons, issue preclusion did not bar Beller’s second trial for

felony murder with robbery and attempted robbery as predicate

offenses.

¶ 35 We do not agree with Beller that the Supreme Court’s decision

in Yeager and our supreme court’s decision in Boulies v. People,

770 P.2d 1274 (Colo. 1989), bar the second trial on felony murder.

¶ 36 In Yeager, the defendant was charged with securities fraud

and insider trading. 557 U.S. at 113. The jury acquitted the

defendant on the fraud counts but hung on the insider trading

counts. Id. at 115. The prosecution sought to retry some of the

insider trading counts, the trial court agreed, and the defendant

took an interlocutory appeal, ultimately to the Supreme Court. The

Court expressly held that double jeopardy “precludes the

Government from relitigating any issue that was necessarily decided

18
 by a jury’s acquittal in a prior trial.” Id. at 119 (emphasis added);

see also Bravo-Fernandez, 580 U.S. at ___, 137 S. Ct. at 358

(“[I]ssue preclusion ordinarily bars relitigation of an issue of fact or

law raised and necessarily resolved by a prior judgment.”)

(emphasis added). It ultimately concluded that if the defendant’s

possession of insider information was a critical issue of ultimate

fact for all of the charges, then a jury verdict that “necessarily”

decided that issue in the defendant’s favor would protect him from

prosecution of any charge for which that is an essential element.

Yeager, 557 U.S. at 123. The Court then remanded the case to the

lower courts to resolve that issue. Id. at 126.

¶ 37 In this case, the acquittal on the aggravated robbery charges

did not necessarily decide whether Beller engaged in simple or

attempted robbery. Yeager, therefore, does not support preclusion

of Beller’s retrial on felony murder relying only on the simple and

attempted robbery predicates that were also before the first jury.

¶ 38 The defendant in Boulies was convicted and sentenced

consecutively after a single trial on charges of both felony murder

and aggravated robbery; the sole predicate for the felony murder

charge was the same aggravated robbery. 770 P.2d at 1277. The

19
 supreme court declined to reach the constitutional double jeopardy

issue because it concluded that the judicial rule of merger

“require[d] that the defendant’s separate conviction for aggravated

robbery be vacated.” Id. at 1281. The decision therefore has no

direct application to this case, where there is no possibility of Beller

facing convictions and consecutive sentences for both felony

murder and the separate aggravated robbery charges of which he

was acquitted.

¶ 39 We are also not persuaded by Beller’s reliance on People v.

Wilson, 852 N.W.2d 134 (Mich. 2014), abrogated by Bravo-

Fernandez, 580 U.S. ___, 137 S. Ct. 352, and Wright v. State, 515

A.2d 1157 (Md. 1986), abrogated on other grounds by Price v. State,

949 A.2d 619 (Md. 2008). The Wilson majority concluded that the

Double Jeopardy Clause precluded retrial of the defendant for

felony murder after he had been acquitted of the only predicate

felony. 852 N.W.2d at 136. Similarly, Wright held that the

defendant’s acquittal for the only predicate felony “was a bar to

further criminal proceedings on a felony murder theory sharing a

common essential element.” 515 A.2d at 1167. Wilson and Wright

share the same crucial difference from this case: the defendants in

20
 those cases were acquitted of the single predicate offense

underlying each of the felony murder counts. Here, in contrast, the

first jury expressly acquitted Beller of aggravated robbery, only one

of the four predicate offenses.

¶ 40 Accordingly, Beller’s retrial and conviction of felony murder

was not barred by issue preclusion.

B. Hearsay

¶ 41 Beller next argues that the trial court violated the hearsay

rules and his confrontation rights when it admitted several

statements that Shaffer made to other witnesses. We disagree.

1. Factual Background

¶ 42 Shaffer did not testify at Beller’s trial. The parties agreed that

he was unavailable as a witness because he had invoked his Fifth

Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The trial court

permitted several witnesses to testify about statements Shaffer

made the night of the shooting.

¶ 43 Samantha Kern, Shaffer’s girlfriend, testified that she was with

her friend, Sunni Torres, at Torres’ apartment the night of the

shooting. According to Kern, Shaffer came to the apartment and

told her the following:

21
  Beller had been shot and had shot Singleton’s father.

 The car that Shaffer was driving was “around the block or a

block away” when the shooting occurred.

 Beller told Shaffer that he had been shot and that he needed

to go to the hospital. Shaffer told him that if he went to the

hospital, he would be in trouble. Beller replied that he

would die if he did not go to the hospital.

 At first, Shaffer did not think Beller had been shot, but then

he realized Beller was hurt “because he was kind of passing

out.”

 Shaffer dropped Beller off a block away from the hospital.

¶ 44 Torres also testified, claiming that Shaffer said the following at

her apartment:

 “[H]e’s got this other kid that was going to set up this other

kid’s dad who grows marijuana for robbery.”

 Something had gone wrong, Singleton’s father had been shot,

and Beller had gone to jail.

 “The father” had been shot “where the kid’s dad grew

marijuana.”

22
  Shaffer was going to meet Beller’s girlfriend.

¶ 45 Torres agreed on cross-examination, however, that her

memory about exactly what Shaffer said at the apartment was “a

little fuzzy” and that she was unsure whether she learned

information from Shaffer, from other people, or from the media.

She also said that Shaffer had not used the word “robbery.”

¶ 46 Lauren Frink, Beller’s girlfriend, testified that on the night of

the shooting she spoke to Shaffer on the phone and then went to

his house. When she arrived, Shaffer said Beller was in the

hospital.

¶ 47 The court admitted a video recording of a police interview with

Frink. In the interview, Frink said that Shaffer told her the

following on the night of the shooting.

 Beller insisted that Shaffer take him somewhere so that

Beller could rob the “place.”

 Shaffer drove Beller and gave him a pistol. The gun was not

Shaffer’s. Beller was trying to rob Singleton.

 “The guy had some pot over there.”

 Shaffer parked around the block or down the street.

23
  Shaffer heard one shot when he was sitting outside. A few

moments later, he heard someone say, “Don’t do it, [Beller].”

Then he heard “a succession of shots.”

 Shaffer thought Beller shot somebody.

 Beller came running out saying, “They got me. They got

me.” Beller also said, “I’m hit.”

 Beller had been shot.

 Shaffer did not think Beller had been shot because there

was not much blood. He tried to talk Beller out of going to

the hospital, telling him that if he went to the hospital, he

would be turning himself in. Beller said he would die unless

he went to the hospital.

 Shaffer drove Beller to the hospital.

Frink told police that after she screamed at Shaffer, demanding that

he admit that he gave Beller the gun, Shaffer said, “I gave him the

gun.” Frink also claimed during the interview that Shaffer was

worried about the police showing up at his house when she spoke

to him.

24
 2. Preservation

¶ 48 Beller asserts that admitting Shaffer’s statements violated the

Federal and State Confrontation Clauses. He also contends that

the statements were inadmissible hearsay.

¶ 49 The Federal Confrontation Clause is implicated only by

testimonial hearsay. Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344, 354 (2011).

Beller neither challenges the trial court’s ruling that Shaffer’s

statements were nontestimonial nor presents a meaningful

argument related to the Federal Confrontation Clause. So we will

not consider his federal claim. See People v. Simpson, 93 P.3d 551,

555 (Colo. App. 2003) (declining “to consider a bald legal

proposition presented without argument or development”).

¶ 50 The People claimed in the trial court that Shaffer’s statements

were admissible under the exceptions to the hearsay rule for excited

utterances under CRE 803(2) and for statements against interest

under CRE 804(3). The trial court overruled Beller’s objections with

thoughtful analysis based on both exceptions. On appeal, the

People dispute whether Beller preserved the argument relied on in

this court for challenging the admission of the statements under the

excited utterance exception, but do not dispute that Beller’s

25
 arguments supporting his objections to admissibility as statements

against interest were preserved. Because we conclude the

statements at issue were properly admitted under the statements

against interest exception, we need not consider whether the excited

utterance arguments were preserved.

¶ 51 The People concede that Beller preserved his claim under

Colorado’s Confrontation Clause.

3. Colorado’s Confrontation Clause

¶ 52 We review de novo whether a trial court violated a defendant’s

confrontation rights. People v. Smalley, 2015 COA 140, ¶ 20.

¶ 53 Our State Confrontation Clause bars a nontestimonial hearsay

statement (if the defendant has not had a prior opportunity for

cross-examination) unless the declarant is unavailable and the

statement bears sufficient indicia of reliability. People v. Phillips,

2012 COA 176, ¶ 84. A statement is sufficiently reliable for

confrontation purposes if it falls within a firmly rooted hearsay

exception or if it holds particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.

People v. Hagos, 250 P.3d 596, 624 (Colo. App. 2009).

¶ 54 To determine whether a statement bears particularized

guarantees of trustworthiness, courts assess the totality of the

26
 circumstances surrounding the statement. See Bernal v. People, 44

P.3d 184, 197 (Colo. 2002). Factors relevant to a statement’s

trustworthiness include where, when, and how the statement was

made; to whom the statement was made; what prompted the

statement; what the statement contained; and what may have

motivated the declarant to make the statement. See id.

4. Hearsay and Statements Against Interest

¶ 55 Hearsay — an out-of-court statement offered in evidence to

prove the truth of the matter asserted — is generally inadmissible.

See CRE 801(c); CRE 802; People v. McFee, 2016 COA 97, ¶ 10.

But there are many exceptions to the general rule prohibiting

hearsay. One such exception permits courts to admit statements

against the declarant’s interest. CRE 804(b)(3). A statement

against interest, as relevant here, is a statement that (1) “a

reasonable person in the declarant’s position would have made only

if the person believed it to be true because, when made,” it had so

great a tendency to expose the declarant to criminal liability; and (2)

“is supported by corroborating circumstances that clearly indicate

its trustworthiness.” Id.

27
¶ 56 A statement that inculpates the accused in addition to the

declarant is admissible under CRE 804(b)(3) only if it satisfies three

requirements. Bernal, 44 P.3d at 195-96. First, the declarant must

be unavailable as a witness. Id. at 196. Second, the statement

must tend to subject the declarant to criminal liability. Id. And

third, the prosecution must establish by a preponderance of the

evidence that corroborating circumstances clearly demonstrate the

statement’s trustworthiness. Id. To determine whether

corroborating circumstances demonstrate the statement’s

trustworthiness, courts must limit their analysis to circumstances

surrounding the statement itself; they should not rely on other

independent evidence implicating the defendant. Id.

¶ 57 CRE 804(b)(3) allows courts to admit not only a precise

statement against interest but also “related, collaterally neutral

statements.” People v. Newton, 966 P.2d 563, 578 (Colo. 1998).

¶ 58 The exception to the hearsay rule for statements against

interest is not a “firmly rooted” exception. Bernal, 44 P.3d at 197.

But CRE 804(b)(3)’s requirement that a statement against interest

offered against an accused be supported by “corroborating

circumstances” incorporates the Confrontation Clause’s

28
 requirement that a statement bear particularized guarantees of

trustworthiness. See Bernal, 44 P.3d at 196-97, 199.

5. Analysis

¶ 59 To begin, we note that no one disputes that Shaffer was

unavailable as a witness. So the unavailability requirement of both

the hearsay exception for statements against interest and the

Confrontation Clause is satisfied.

¶ 60 We turn, then, to whether Shaffer’s statements tended to

expose him to criminal liability and conclude that they did. This

question focuses on whether a reasonable person in the declarant’s

position would not have made the statements unless the person

believed them to be true. Newton, 966 P.2d at 576. Shaffer’s

statements exposed him to criminal liability because they describe

him and Beller planning and attempting to rob the Singletons of

marijuana. For that reason, a reasonable person in his position

would not have made those statements believing them to be untrue.

¶ 61 We are not persuaded by Beller’s arguments to the contrary.

In his view, many of Shaffer’s statements were not against Shaffer’s

own interest because they “attempted to shift blame” to Beller. But

the mere fact that Shaffer’s statements also implicated Beller does

29
 not mean that they did not expose Shaffer to criminal liability. Cf.

United States v. Monserrate-Valentine, 729 F.3d 31, 53 (1st Cir.

2013) (noting that the declarant’s statement that he and four others

robbed a truck was “plainly self-inculpatory, even though it also

inculpated other members of [a] conspiracy”). Beller also argues

that a reasonable person would not understand complicity liability

or the crime of conspiracy, and therefore would not understand that

Shaffer’s statements exposed him to criminal liability. Although a

reasonable person may not know the precise legal requirements of

complicity or conspiracy liability, a reasonable person would know

that participating in a crime could create criminal liability.

¶ 62 The question becomes whether Shaffer’s statements are

sufficiently supported by corroborating circumstances, a question

that, under the circumstances of this case, incorporates the

requirement of our State Confrontation Clause that the statements

bear particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.

¶ 63 We agree with the trial court that the circumstances

surrounding Shaffer’s statements contain such guarantees. Shaffer

made the statements at Torres’ apartment and his own home to his

girlfriend and two acquaintances. Moreover, the statements

30
 occurred shortly after the events they described. All of these

circumstances contribute to the statements’ trustworthiness. See

People v. Jensen, 55 P.3d 135, 139 (Colo. App. 2001) (concluding

that a codefendant’s statements were trustworthy because they

were made to a friend while the codefendant was not in police

custody).

¶ 64 The circumstances surrounding Shaffer’s statements contrast

sharply with those found in the cases on which Beller principally

relies, Lilly v. Virginia, 527 U.S. 116 (1999), and Stevens v. Ortiz,

465 F.3d 1229 (10th Cir. 2006). In both Lilly and Stevens, the

declarant was in custody and made statements in response to

police questioning. Lilly, 527 U.S. at 139; Stevens, 465 F.3d at

1240-42. Further,

[c]ourts have long recognized that an
accomplice’s confession in police custody “is
presumptively unreliable as to the passages
detailing the defendant’s conduct or culpability
because those passages may well be the
product of the codefendant’s desire to shift or
spread blame, curry favor, avenge himself, or
divert attention to another.”

Stevens, 465 F.3d at 1241 (quoting Lee v. Illinois, 476 U.S. 530, 545

(1986)). The circumstances surrounding Shaffer’s statements,

31
 unlike those surrounding custodial confessions, do not suggest that

Shaffer had a motive to shift blame, curry favor, or divert attention

to another. See Jensen, 55 P.3d at 139 (noting that statements

made to a friend were not “a result of leading questions or coercion,

or made in the hope of any lenity or favorable treatment”).

¶ 65 Beller also argues that Shaffer’s statements were unreliable

because of credibility problems of the witnesses who described

Shaffer’s statements at trial. But those witnesses were subject to

cross-examination, so their “credibility was a question for the jury

to determine.” Id.

¶ 66 For these reasons, we conclude that the trial court did not err

when it admitted Shaffer’s statements under the hearsay exception

for statements against interest. Nor did admitting them violate the

Colorado Confrontation Clause.

III. Conclusion

¶ 67 The judgment is affirmed.

JUDGE GRAHAM and JUDGE J. JONES concur.

32