Peo v. Plascencia, 23CA1630

Damaige Dominic Plascencia was convicted by a jury in Colorado for sexual assault of a helpless victim who had not consented (A.R.), following a night involving alcohol, a hotel, and an encounter at Plascencia's home.
Prosecution evidence showed A.R. was intoxicated, lost consciousness in Plascencia’s basement, and was sexually assaulted and photographed while unconscious.
A.R. and her boyfriend, Couch, called the police the next day; forensic evidence, including DNA and phone records, was gathered.
Plascencia’s theory at trial was that A.R. consented; the prosecution's case relied on circumstantial and direct evidence refuting consent, including the physical and testimonial evidence of unconsciousness.
The trial court allowed admission of Cellebrite-extracted phone records, certain photos, and evidence that A.R. was recovering from a miscarriage and medical procedure at the time, over defense objections.
The jury convicted Plascencia of one count of sexual assault; other counts were dismissed or resulted in acquittal. Plascencia appealed his conviction and evidentiary rulings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence to disprove consent	Substantial evidence showed Plascencia knew A.R. was helpless/unconscious and not consenting	Prosecution failed to disprove A.R.’s consent and relied on inconsistent evidence	Evidence sufficient; jury could reject consent
Admission & reliability/authenticity of phone report	Cellebrite extraction was reliable, authenticated by expert testimony	Lacked proper foundation; detectives lacked knowledge to authenticate	Properly authenticated and reliable; admissible
Admission of photos and text messages from phone	Photos and texts were relevant, probative of victim’s helplessness/non-consent	Unduly prejudicial, inadmissible hearsay, improper authentication	Not hearsay, properly authenticated, not prejudicial
Admission of evidence re: victim’s miscarriage & D&C	Relevant to rebut consent defense—physical condition made consent implausible	Irrelevant, inadmissible under rape shield statute, unduly prejudicial	Not rape shield evidence; admissible, relevant

Martinez v. People, 344 P.3d 862 (Colo. 2015) (sets standard for de novo sufficiency of evidence review)
People v. Johnson, 498 P.3d 157 (Colo. App. 2021) (weight and credibility of evidence are for the jury)
People v. Hamilton, 452 P.3d 184 (Colo. App. 2019) (foundation needed for electronic phone records)
People v. Brown, 313 P.3d 608 (Colo. App. 2011) (chain of custody required for real evidence authentication)
People v. Harris, 43 P.3d 221 (Colo. 2002) (scope of rape shield statute and admissibility of victim’s prior sexual activity)