Pellman v. People
252 P.3d 1122
| Colo. | 2011Background
- Pellman charged with sexual assault on a child by a person in a position of trust under §18-3-405.3(1).
- Victim L.B. was 15 at time of alleged offenses in summer 2005; acts spanned May–August 2005.
- Pellman was a church youth volunteer and family friend with ongoing access to L.B.
- Evidence showed ongoing supervisory/relational role beyond discrete acts (e.g., Sunday school, kids' club, babysitting, horseback riding).
- Elitch Gardens trip chaperone and other supervision episodes occurred during the same period as unlawful contact.
- Court of Appeals held Pellman in a position of trust due to ongoing relationship; Colorado Supreme Court affirmed, adopting broader interpretation of “position of trust.”
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a specific supervisory task is required to be in a position of trust | Pellman argues trust requires a discrete supervisory duty at time of unlawful act | Pellman contends general ongoing supervision suffices | No; ongoing supervisory relationship suffices |
| Whether Pellman occupied a position of trust when the unlawful acts occurred | Record shows continuous supervisory role with L.B. through church/volunteer context | Last specific supervisory moment was later, thus no trust at time of acts | Yes; sufficient evidence of continuous trust at time of unlawful acts |
| Relation to Johnson case and statutory interpretation | Johnson requires specific entrustment during acts | Johnson limited, but still requires position of trust at time of act | Position of trust exists for the duration of the relationship; acts occurred within that period |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Johnson, 167 P.3d 207 (Colo. App. 2007) (driving instructor case; trust ended after course; no trust at acts)
- People v. Martinez, 51 P.3d 1046 (Colo. App. 2001) (relevance of access gained by position of trust)
- Luman, 994 P.2d 432 (Colo. App. 1999) (trust when defendant lived with victim; broad notion of access)
- Ruff v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office, 218 P.3d 1109 (Colo. App. 2009) (interpretation of “includes, but is not limited to” in statutory phrase)