People v. Conyac
2014 Colo. App. LEXIS 564
Colo. Ct. App.2014Background
- Defendant Edward Conyac was convicted by a jury of multiple counts of incest and sexual assault against his stepdaughter KT based largely on KT's testimony and a recorded confession in which he admitted to several incidents; he later recanted.
- KT reported three separate assaults between 2006–2008 at three residences; a pediatric exam found no physical abnormalities, and the examiner explained that lack of findings is common.
- At trial the defense argued fabrication (motive to remove defendant from home) and that the confession was coerced or derived from notes; prosecution presented expert testimony on child sexual abuse dynamics and an investigator who described interview techniques.
- The court admitted (1) expert testimony by a clinician on grooming and offender characteristics, (2) testimony by the examining pediatrician about the high incidence of normal exams, and (3) testimony by an officer about interrogation tactics; it excluded evidence of KT’s prior alleged sexual acts and limited cross-examination about a pending dependency-and-neglect (D&N) matter.
- The prosecutor made challenged remarks in rebuttal (e.g., "presumption of innocence is gone" and urging jurors to "find justice for KT"); defendant also challenged admission of testimony about defendant’s request for anal sex with his wife.
- The trial court adjudicated defendant a habitual criminal and imposed lengthy concurrent terms; the court of appeals affirmed in all respects.
Issues
| Issue | People’s Argument | Conyac’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Challenge for cause to Juror M | Juror could set aside prior trauma and be impartial. | Juror’s family trauma (niece murdered after sexual assault) created bias requiring excusal. | No abuse of discretion; voir dire showed juror could follow law and be fair. |
| Admission of expert testimony on grooming/offender characteristics (Moore) | Testimony educates jury about abuse dynamics and modus operandi; not a propensity "profile." | Testimony was improper profile/propensity evidence and unduly prejudicial. | Admissible under CRE 702 as background/modus operandi; not substantially prejudicial. |
| Dr. Crawford’s testimony on low rate of physical findings | Explains relevance of normal exam; disclosed pretrial and useful to rebut defense. | Statistics unsupported by disclosure, irrelevant, prejudicial. | Admissible; prior disclosures and relevance justified admission; not unfairly prejudicial. |
| Officer testimony on interrogation techniques / polygraph implications | Testimony provided context for interview tactics; officer qualified by experience. | Crossed into expert testimony, implied polygraph/credibility comments. | No reversible error; even if expert, officer sufficiently qualified; testimony contextual and not improper credibility finding. |
| Admission of spouse’s testimony about defendant’s request for anal sex | Offered to show motive and relevance to anal assault on child. | Impermissible other-acts evidence under CRE 404(b), propensity inference. | Admissible for motive under CRE 404(b); probative value not substantially outweighed by prejudice. |
| Exclusion of KT’s prior sexual-knowledge records & D&N specifics | Records irrelevant or too prejudicial under rape-shield; D&N details unnecessary. | Exclusion violated Confrontation/cross-examination rights and foreclosed defense theory of fabrication. | No abuse of discretion; rape-shield and relevance rules permit exclusion; cross-examination allowed on DHS involvement and conflict, and exclusion was harmless. |
| Prosecutorial remarks in rebuttal ("presumption of innocence is gone," "find justice for KT") | Remarks responsive to defense; not so flagrant as to require reversal given evidence. | Comments were improper, undermined presumption and pressured jurors. | Some comments disapproved but not plain reversible error given confession, testimony, and correct jury instructions. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Palomo, 272 P.3d 1106 (Colo. App. 2011) (standard for reviewing challenges for cause)
- People v. Samson, 302 P.3d 311 (Colo. App. 2012) (deference to trial court’s demeanor assessments in voir dire)
- Salcedo v. People, 999 P.2d 833 (Colo. 2000) (limits on profile evidence and expert testimony)
- People v. Whitman, 205 P.3d 371 (Colo. App. 2007) (expert qualification and admissibility analysis)
- United States v. Long, 328 F.3d 655 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (distinguishing impermissible profile use from admissible modus operandi/background testimony)
- Davis v. People, 310 P.3d 58 (Colo. 2013) (limits on testimony about witness credibility and permissible officer testimony to explain investigative tactics)
- McKenna v. People, 585 P.2d 275 (Colo. 1978) (upholding rape-shield statute against confrontation claims)