People v. Brown
2011 Colo. App. LEXIS 1298
Colo. Ct. App.2011Background
- Police executed a search warrant at Brown's home and seized a laptop and an external hard drive containing a photograph and two videos depicting child pornography.
- A computer-forensics expert testified the laptop was registered to Brown and the images were in active files, not deleted.
- A detective testified as a child-pornography expert that the images did not appear faked and depicted individuals clearly under eighteen.
- A pediatric doctor testified the individuals in the images were about ten to thirteen or up to sixteen years old in the other video.
- Brown claimed he did not know the images were on his computer and that many people had access to the computer; he also admitted knowing police were coming but did not delete the files.
- The jury convicted Brown on three counts of sexual exploitation of a child.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of photos and videos | People; authentication/CRE 408 objections fail; materials depict real children. | Brown; prosecution must prove real children, proper authentication lacking, risk of prejudice. | Evidence admissible despite misapplication of real-child requirement; proper foundation and relevance shown. |
| Foundation and authentication of real evidence | Images were properly authenticated as real evidence through chain of custody and expert identification. | Authentication insufficient; no witness testified about creation conditions or location. | Sufficient foundation to admit as real evidence; chain of custody established and images tied to the case. |
| Prejudice vs. probative value | Images are direct proof of an essential element; probative value outweighs prejudice. | Admission of explicit material risks unfair prejudice. | No reversible error; probative value outweighs prejudice under CRE 403. |
| Sufficiency of the evidence to prove real children | Images themselves show real children; corroborating expert testimony supports age. | No conclusive proof that images depict real children. | Evidence sufficient; jury could reasonably conclude the depicted individuals were real children. |
| Admission and effect of detective expert testimony | Detective properly qualified as an expert under CRE 702; endorsement issues irrelevant. | Crim. P. 16 endorsement and qualifications lack; credibility concerns. | Admission harmless; doctor testimony corroborated; any error did not affect outcome. |
| Prosecutorial misconduct in closing | Arguments were within bounds; could draw reasonable inferences from evidence. | Remarks misstated law and reflected personal opinion. | No plain error; comments not flagrantly improper and not likely to have deprived a fair trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Summitt, 132 P.3d 320 (Colo.2006) (evidence admissibility under CRE 104(b) framework)
- Campbell, 94 P.3d 1186 (Colo.App.2004) (real-vs-virtual material distinction for statutory theory)
- Sims, 428 F.3d 945 (10th Cir.2005) (no expert testimony required to prove real-child images)
- McNealy, 625 F.3d 858 (5th Cir.2010) (no need for testifying expert to prove image depicts real child)
- Wilder, 526 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.2008) (government not required to produce technology expert)
- Hoey, 508 F.3d 687 (1st Cir.2007) (no expert required to establish that depicted child is real)
- Salcido, 506 F.3d 729 (9th Cir.2007) (chain-of-custody suffices to authenticate images)
- Greer, 262 P.3d 920 (Colo.App.2011) (Crim. P. 16 endorsement requirements without expert reports)
- Stewart, 55 P.3d 107 (Colo.2002) (pretrial disclosure of experts and prejudice considerations)
- Veren, 140 P.3d 131 (Colo.App.2005) (pretrial disclosure and expert testimony standards)
- Allee, 77 P.3d 831 (Colo.App.2008) (harmless error analysis for expert testimony)
- Jaramillo, 183 P.3d 665 (Colo.App.2008) (harmless error where testimony is cumulative)
- Garner, 806 P.2d 366 (Colo.1991) (evidence sufficiency and credibility considerations)
- Burlington Northern R.R. Co. v. Hood, 802 P.2d 458 (Colo.1990) (standard for admissibility under CRE 104; preliminary determinations)