Background
Devan Rebecca Schreiner was convicted of first-degree murder after shooting her ex-boyfriend, the father of their child, five times while he delivered mail. Evidence showed that the victim had begun dating Schreiner’s sister and had recently sought increased parenting time. Cell-phone and postal-scanner data placed Schreiner near the shooting, gunshot residue was found on her body and belongings, and messages and witness testimony reflected her anger toward the victim and prior discussions with codefendant Andrew James Ritchie about killing him.
At trial, the defense conceded that Schreiner killed the victim but argued that she lacked the intent and deliberation required for first-degree murder because Ritchie’s controlling and abusive conduct overwhelmed her ability to think. The district court allowed lay testimony about their relationship but excluded generalized expert testimony about domestic violence and human trafficking because Schreiner had not provided the statutory notice or undergone a court-ordered mental examination. It also excluded older text messages between Schreiner and Ritchie. The jury rejected the defense theory and convicted her as charged.
The Court’s Holding
The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed. The majority held that the proposed expert testimony constituted expert opinion concerning Schreiner’s mental condition under section 16-8-107(3)(b), C.R.S. 2026, because she sought to use it to explain how abuse affected her thinking and to negate the mens rea for first-degree murder. Because she declined to undergo the required court-ordered examination, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by excluding the testimony. The majority added that any error would have been harmless given the overwhelming evidence of intent and deliberation.
The court also upheld the exclusion of the older text messages, reasoning that they did not concern the victim or the homicide, were largely remote in time, included discussions of other misconduct, and were not required by the rule of completeness. It rejected Schreiner’s cumulative-error claim and held that Colorado’s 2022 model reasonable-doubt instruction—including its “firmly convinced” and “real possibility” language—did not lower the prosecution’s burden of proof. Judge Berger dissented from that final holding and would have ordered a new trial based on the reasonable-doubt instruction.
Key Takeaways
- Generalized expert testimony about how abuse or trafficking affects a defendant’s thinking may qualify as mental-condition evidence when offered to negate mens rea, triggering Colorado’s notice and court-ordered-examination requirements.
- The rule of completeness did not require admission of older messages exchanged on a different platform when they did not clarify or correct a misleading impression created by the admitted messages.
- The majority upheld Colorado’s 2022 model reasonable-doubt instruction, although Judge Berger dissented and would have reversed on that issue.
Why It Matters
The opinion illustrates that a defendant cannot avoid Colorado’s statutory procedures for mental-condition evidence merely by characterizing proposed expert testimony as generalized education about domestic violence or trafficking. Courts will look to the purpose for which the evidence is offered, particularly whether it is intended to undermine the prosecution’s proof of mens rea.
The decision also adds to the Colorado appellate debate over the 2022 reasonable-doubt instruction. Although the majority found the instruction constitutional, the partial dissent reflects continuing disagreement about whether its revised language adequately conveys the prosecution’s burden.