People v. Campos
2015 WL 1844352
Colo. Ct. App.2015Background
- S.A. received IRS letters and a Medicaid denial showing wages reported under her name/SSN for jobs she never held; she reported identity misuse to police.
- An ABM Janitorial employee was found receiving paychecks in the name "S.A." and admitted her real name was Evelin Campos when confronted by police.
- Campos was charged with identity theft, criminal impersonation, and two counts of forgery; jury convicted on identity theft and criminal impersonation, acquitted on forgery; sentenced to two years supervised probation.
- At trial Campos claimed she was one of several undocumented workers for whom an ABM manager (Martinez) provided false identity documents and that she did not complete the original hiring paperwork herself.
- The prosecution introduced ABM payroll and personnel records and testimony (including Martinez) showing paychecks and employee records in S.A.'s name and SSN, supporting that Campos used S.A.'s identifying information to obtain employment and wages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for identity theft under § 18-5-902(1)(a): whether obtaining employment qualifies as "thing of value" | Prosecution: employment yields pecuniary benefits (wages/benefits); using another's ID to obtain a job obtains a thing of value. | Campos: using a job only provides the opportunity to earn pay; she earned her wages by work and did not obtain a thing of value she was not entitled to. | Court: employment is a "thing of value" (pecuniary); evidence that Campos used S.A.'s ID to obtain employment and wages was sufficient to sustain the identity theft conviction. |
| Exclusion of recross questions about Martinez's SSN and whether he had to provide one (Confrontation Clause and CRE 608(b)) | Campos: questioning Martinez about his SSN could reveal use of false SSN, relevant to credibility and bias under CRE 608(b) and Confrontation Clause. | Prosecution: questions were marginally relevant/repetitive; court limited repetitive/improper impeachment. | Court: exclusion not an abuse of discretion; defense had extensive prior impeachment; limits were reasonable and did not violate Confrontation Clause. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Beck, 187 P.3d 1125 (Colo. App.) (interpreting "thing of value" by ejusdem generis in identity-theft context)
- State v. Ramirez, 633 N.W.2d 656 (Wis. App.) (using another's SSN to obtain employment yields wages and benefits that are "things of value")
- People v. Montoya, 868 N.E.2d 389 (Ill. App.) (affirming identity-theft conviction where name/SSN used to obtain job produced wages/insurance as property/value)
- State v. Meza, 165 P.3d 298 (Kan. App.) (holding use of another's identifying information to obtain employment satisfies identity-theft statute)