The Colorado Court of Appeals recently affirmed the Montezuma County District Court judgment in the case that left a 20-year-old Cortez man dead in May 2022.
In March of 2023, a jury found Gabrielle D. Juan Doctor of Kayenta, Arizona, guilty of “multiple criminal charges stemming from a car and motorcycle collision resulting in death.”
According to reports, Doctor was driving west on Main Street when he attempted to make a left turn onto South Sligo Street. When he turned, he collided with Travis Beeson, 20, who was riding a motorcycle. Beeson was flown to St. Mary’s Medical Center in Grand Junction, where he died May 27.
When police arrived, Doctor told them the sun was in his eyes “and he didn’t see the motorcycle until it was too late.” It was later revealed that he was not wearing the “corrective lenses” that were required per his driver’s license.
Though Doctor was found not guilty of vehicular homicide and criminally negligent homicide charges, he was found guilty of driving while ability impaired, child abuse (negligence, no injury), careless driving resulting in death, compulsory insurance, failure to yield right of way and no child restraint.
Doctor’s 6-year-old niece, who was also in the vehicle, was unrestrained in the backseat, and he told police he had been drinking the night before and the morning of the crash. Officers found empty alcohol containers in his vehicle in addition to a “makeshift” pipe with burned marijuana residue.
He was arrested on suspicion of driving while ability impaired. Two hours after the collision, his blood alcohol content was found to be 0.057.
Doctor appealed the judgment, saying the trial court “erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained during a roadside sobriety test,” as well as “allowing the prosecution to display an in-life photograph” of Beeson during the trial. He added that the “prosecutor engaged in misconduct during closing argument.”
During voluntary roadside maneuvers, officer Kadan Sharp, who was new to the police department at the time, reportedly did not see signs of impairment in Doctor with a horizontal gaze nystagmus test. Sgt. Glenn Edwards, “unsure of Sharp’s assessment,” asked Doctor if he could look at his eyes. Though Doctor agreed, according to reports, he noted in his appeal that he was not consenting to another test.
The trial court decided Doctor did consent to the additional test, as “any reasonable person would have understood that Edwards was asking to repeat the HGN test that Sharp had performed.”
Doctor’s appeal also questioned the inclusion of an “in-life photograph” of Beeson that was used during the trial. His appeal noted that the photograph may have swayed the jury.
When Beeson’s father testified at the trial, the court allowed him to display a photo of Beeson before the accident.
Two jurors reportedly cried after viewing the photo, causing the defense counsel to move for a mistrial, which was denied. The photo was displayed again during closing arguments.
The Court of Appeals pointed to the split verdict as an indicator that the photograph was “harmless.”
“While a split verdict does not conclusively decide the harmlessness question, it is ‘an indication that the jurors exercised some discretion in their deliberations and that the error did not cause them to ‘blindly convict the defendant,’” the Court of Appeals said.
Finally, Doctor said he is “entitled” to a new trial because the prosecution shared what his BAC may have been at the time of the accident, 0.077 and 0.107, and alleged that he had “used marijuana while children were in the car” during closing arguments.
“He asserts the prosecutor attempted to inflame the jury’s passions by displaying the in-life photograph of the victim and arguing that the victim ‘lost more than his life. His parents lost the ability to see him get married, have kids, have a successful life,’” the Court of Appeals added.
The Court of Appeals disagreed that the range suggested for Doctor’s BAC was improper expert testimony, saying they were “explicitly based on an expert toxicologist’s testimony.”
The Court of Appeals did agree, however, that the prosecutor’s comments regarding alleged marijuana usage in the vehicle were “improper,” as the court had “properly instructed the jury that there was no evidence that Doctor used marijuana with children in the vehicle.”
“Nevertheless, we cannot conclude these comments warrant reversal. As described above, the evidence that Doctor failed to yield, lacked insurance, failed to use a child restraint and engaged in negligent child abuse was undisputed, and the evidence of careless driving resulting in death and DWAI was strong,” the Court of Appeals said. “The prosecutor’s improper comments were relatively brief and isolated and the jury’s split verdict indicates that it was able to fairly consider the evidence despite them.”
In April 2023, Doctor was sentenced to 180 days of jail, with 180 days credit for time served, 50 hours of useful public service, Level II education, Track B Outpatient Therapy and a victim impact panel for DWAI. This sentence was set to run concurrently with the sentences for child abuse (negligence, no injury) and careless driving resulting in death.
For Count 3, child abuse (negligence, no injury), Doctor was sentenced to 365 days of jail with 275 days credited for time served.
The sentence for careless driving resulting in death was 365 days of jail with 275 days credit for time served.
As with the two prior sentences, Doctor was sentenced to 365 days of jail with 275 days credit for time served for failure to display proof of insurance. This sentence was set to run concurrently with the prior sentences.
Doctor was also fined $50 for failure to yield right of way and $50 for child restraint not used.
The judgment was affirmed and announced on Feb. 20, 2025.
