McCoy v. People
2019 CO 44
| Colo. | 2019Background
- David McCoy was convicted by a jury of two counts of unlawful sexual contact under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-3-404(1)(g) based on incidents in which he told young men he was recruiting them for work, claimed medical training, conducted purported physical examinations in his apartment, and touched their genitals and buttocks.
- At trial the victims and several Rule 404(b) witnesses described a repeated pattern: McCoy represented himself as medically trained, took IDs, interviewed men, then performed physical checks that became sexual.
- McCoy did not move for judgment of acquittal at trial arguing a statutory-interpretation theory later pressed on appeal: § 18-3-404(1)(g) applies only to physician–patient relationships or bona fide medical examinations by licensed physicians.
- The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed in a split decision; McCoy sought certiorari.
- The Colorado Supreme Court granted review to decide (1) the proper standard for unpreserved sufficiency claims, (2) the scope and constitutionality of § 18-3-404(1)(g), and (3) whether the evidence was sufficient under the correct statutory construction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard of review for unpreserved sufficiency claims | Appellee (People) argued plain-error review should apply to forfeited sufficiency claims | McCoy argued sufficiency may be raised for first time on appeal and should be reviewed de novo | Court: Unpreserved sufficiency claims are not subject to plain-error review; appellate courts review them de novo |
| Scope of § 18-3-404(1)(g) (treatment/examination language) | People: statute reaches any actor who knowingly subjects a victim to sexual contact during treatment/exam for other than bona fide medical purposes | McCoy: provision limited to physician–patient relationships or bona fide medical examinations by physicians | Court: statute covers doctors, other treatment providers, and those who hold themselves out as such (e.g., impostors/healers) conducting or purporting to conduct examinations/treatment for improper purposes |
| Facial overbreadth | McCoy: broad reading could criminalize consensual private sexual role-play | People: reading is cabined by the statute’s focus on deceptive or improper medical examination/treatment | Court: not unconstitutionally overbroad — private consensual adult sexual conduct is not within statute’s core reach; statute targets deceptive/pretended medical examinations |
| Sufficiency of evidence under correct construction | McCoy: evidence insufficient because he was not a physician and did not perform bona fide medical exams | People: evidence showed McCoy held himself out as medically trained and induced victims to submit to sexual contact via purported exams | Court: evidence (victim testimony, pattern evidence) was substantial and sufficient to convict beyond a reasonable doubt |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (Due process requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (appellate standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- Morse v. People, 452 P.2d 3 (Colo. 1969) (reviewing sufficiency on appeal though not raised at trial)
- Clark v. People, 232 P.3d 1287 (Colo. 2010) (de novo review of sufficiency questions)
- People v. Lacallo, 338 P.3d 442 (Colo. App. 2014) (discussed differing appellate division approaches to unpreserved sufficiency review)