El Paso County District Court No. 11CR685. Honorable David L. Shakes, Judge.
John W. Suthers, Attorney General, Jillian J. Price, Assistant Attorney General, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Douglas K. Wilson, Colorado State Public Defender, Adam Mueller, Deputy State Public Defender, Denver, Colorado, for Defendant-Appellant.
Loeb and Gabriel, JJ.,
[¶1] Defendant, Eric Marcus Doyle, appeals the judgment of conviction entered on a jury verdict finding him guilty of violating a condition of his bail bond. We affirm.
[¶2] Doyle was arrested and charged with theft and conspiracy to commit theft stemming from his involvement in an attempt to sell a water pump to a scrap metal processor. After Doyle was booked into jail, he posted a $3,000 bond. As a condition of his bond, he was required to appear in court on March 8, 2011. Doyle failed to appear on that date. The prosecution then added a charge against Doyle for violation of a bail bond condition pursuant to section 18-8-212(1), C.R.S. 2012.
[¶3] On the morning of trial, Doyle requested that the bond violation charge be considered separately from the theft and conspiracy charges. The trial court granted the request, and ruled that the jury could hear additional evidence after it considered the theft and conspiracy to commit theft charges.
[¶4] The jury acquitted Doyle on the first two charges. The trial court then told the jury, " [T]here is an additional charge [against Doyle] that we will receive evidence on and you will need to reach a verdict on."
[¶5] With respect to the bond violation charge, both parties waived opening statement and the prosecution offered a single exhibit. Included in the exhibit were certified copies of (1) Doyle's appearance bond, which stated that Doyle's personal appearance in court on March 8, 2011 was " the primary condition" of his bond, (2) a waiver of extradition, signed by Doyle and notarized by a deputy sheriff, and (3) a notice of bail forfeiture directed to Doyle's surety company, notifying the surety that " on 03/08/2011 because of [Doyle's] failure to appear in accordance with the primary condition of the bond, the court ordered that the bond . . . in the amount of $3,000.00 be forfeited."
[¶6] Defense counsel did not object to any of the certified documents in the prosecution's exhibit, stating that the documents were " self-authenticating." The trial court admitted the exhibit.
[¶7] The prosecution then asked the court to take judicial notice of the court file in Doyle's case, specifically that Doyle " was accused by information of the commission of the offense of theft and conspiracy to commit theft and that [he] failed to appear on March 8th of 2011 when called upon to appear by the Court." Defense counsel objected, arguing that the prosecution was asking the court ...