## Facts

- Clifton Blecha, an inmate at the Limon Correctional Facility, was prosecuted for the killing of fellow inmate Daniel Shettler.
- On July 13, 1992, prison staff found Shettler dead in his cell on his upper bunk; evidence showed strangulation with a ligature.
- Inmate Joseph Bates testified as an eyewitness and described Blecha’s involvement in the killing.
- Bates also testified to two out-of-court statements made to him by Roger Younger, a co-defendant who had been tried separately and acquitted before Blecha’s trial.
- The prosecution introduced Younger’s statements through Bates rather than calling Younger to testify.

## Issues

1. Whether Younger's out-of-court statements were admissible under the co-conspirator doctrine (made during and in furtherance of the conspiracy).
2. Whether the statements were admissible as declarations against penal interest.
3. Whether admitting the statements violated the confrontation right under Article II, Section 16 of the Colorado Constitution.
4. If a confrontation violation occurred, whether the error was harmless under the constitutional standard (harmless beyond a reasonable doubt).

## Decision

- The Colorado Supreme Court agreed that the trial court erred by admitting Younger’s statements.
- The statements were not admissible as co-conspirator statements because they were made after the killing and were not in furtherance of any ongoing conspiracy.
- The statements were not admissible as declarations against penal interest because Younger was not unavailable; after acquittal, he was not protected by the Fifth Amendment and could have been called to testify.
- Admission of the statements violated Blecha’s confrontation right under the Colorado Constitution.
- The court held the correct harmless-error test for this constitutional error is whether the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Applying that standard, the court affirmed the conviction because the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt in light of overwhelming independent evidence of guilt.

## Legal Principles

- Co-conspirator statements are admissible only if made during the course of, and in furtherance of, the conspiracy; post-crime narrative statements generally do not qualify absent proof of an ongoing concealment objective.
- A declaration-against-penal-interest theory requires the declarant’s unavailability; a declarant who can be compelled to testify cannot be treated as unavailable on that basis.
- Introducing an available declarant’s inculpatory out-of-court statements through another witness, without producing the declarant for cross-examination, violates Article II, Section 16 of the Colorado Constitution.
- For constitutional errors, appellate courts must apply the “harmless beyond a reasonable doubt” standard, not the non-constitutional “substantial rights” test.

## Conclusion

The court held that admitting an acquitted co-defendant’s post-crime hearsay statements was both evidentiary error and a violation of Colorado’s confrontation right, but it affirmed the convictions because the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given the strength of the remaining evidence.


Blecha v. People, 962 P.2d 931 (Colo. 1998)