2018 COA 77
Colo. Ct. App.2018Background
- Juvenile G.B., age 16, was tried and adjudicated delinquent for acts that, if by an adult, would constitute felony sexual assault against a 15‑year‑old victim; he was sentenced to Division of Youth Corrections.
- Evidence included testimony that the group drank and used marijuana, the victim was intoxicated/dizzy and had difficulty walking, and multiple sexual acts occurred in a bathroom and a truck; testimony about consent and force conflicted among witnesses.
- G.B. was convicted on counts alleging he knew the victim was “incapable of appraising the nature of [her] conduct”; he argued insufficiency of the evidence on that mental‑state element.
- During trial the court excluded all spectators under age 18 from a significant portion of the proceedings (and at one point excluded all spectators during cross‑examination of the SANE), over G.B.’s objection asserting a public‑trial right violation.
- On appeal the court held the evidence as to the victim’s incapacity was sufficient but reversed and remanded for a new trial because the closure excluding all under‑18 spectators violated the defendant’s public‑trial right as a structural error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence that G.B. knew victim was incapable of appraising her conduct | Prosecution: evidence of victim’s intoxication, inability to move, gaps in memory, and witnesses’ observations supported knowing culpable mental state | G.B.: victim was not asleep, permanently impaired, or mentally deficient and testified she knew what was happening | Held: Evidence was sufficient when viewed in light most favorable to prosecution; conviction on that element stands |
| Exclusion of all spectators under 18 from significant portion of trial (public‑trial right) | State: exclusion protected children from salacious evidence; alternatively, partial closures require only a substantial interest | G.B.: blanket exclusion of under‑18s was overbroad, court failed to consider reasonable alternatives, violating Waller | Held: Reversed — closure violated Waller because it was broader than necessary and court did not consider alternatives; structural error requires new trial |
| Exclusion of all spectators during SANE cross‑examination | State conceded preservation only for under‑18 closure; argued limited closures OK | G.B.: exclusion violated public‑trial right | Held: Court did not decide SANE cross‑examination issue because reversal on under‑18 closure rendered it unnecessary |
| Remedy for flawed closure (remand for findings vs. reversal) | State: if record unclear, remand for findings; otherwise no reversal | G.B.: closure was substantial, two days long, and not momentary, so reversal required | Held: No remand for findings; reversal and remand for new trial because closure was neither momentary nor cured by record |
Key Cases Cited
- Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (1984) (establishes four‑part test for courtroom closures protecting public‑trial right)
- Presley v. Georgia, 558 U.S. 209 (2010) (trial court must consider reasonable alternatives to closure)
- Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (1999) (structural errors require reversal without prejudice showing)
- Platt v. People, 201 P.3d 545 (Colo. 2009) (statutory interpretation: "incapable of appraising" addresses cognitive inability to appreciate conduct)
- Gannett Co. v. DePasquale, 443 U.S. 368 (1979) (public access to trials promotes witness availability and truthful testimony)