2014 COA 174
Colo. Ct. App.2014Background
- Early morning of Dec. 18, 2012, Delsordo reported a house fire; investigation found fire originating at the dryer exhaust, a tea light near the vent, and multiple separate burn marks on the siding.
- Delsordo gave inconsistent statements to police about events the night of the fire, at times admitting she lit wood beneath the vent and at other times denying smoking.
- She was charged with first-degree arson, reckless endangerment, and criminal mischief; a jury convicted her of arson and reckless endangerment and she received a 12-year sentence with five years mandatory parole.
- The prosecution introduced evidence of three prior incidents in which Delsordo made false police reports of kidnapping/sexual assault; in each prior incident she later admitted the report was false.
- The district court admitted the prior false-report evidence under CRE 404(b) (motive, common plan, absence of mistake) with limiting instructions; Delsordo objected.
- The appellate court reversed, holding the prior-act evidence lacked independent logical relevance (was too dissimilar) and its admission was not harmless given the importance the prosecution placed on it and the non-overwhelming physical evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of prior false-report evidence under CRE 404(b) | Prior reports show motive/common plan and absence of mistake; similar attention‑seeking conduct makes intentional arson more probable | Prior false rape reports are not sufficiently similar or connected to a reported house fire; admission invites impermissible propensity inference | Reversed: evidence not logically relevant independent of propensity; should not have been admitted |
| Denial of motion to present additional voluntariness evidence (due process) | State: district court acted within discretion in denying late-filed request | Delsordo: denial deprived her of due process by refusing additional evidentiary hearing on voluntariness | Not reached on merits (court reversed on other-act evidence and remanded; suppression issue left unaddressed) |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Spoto, 795 P.2d 1314 (Colo. 1990) (articulates four‑part CRE 404(b) test)
- Yusem v. People, 210 P.3d 458 (Colo. 2009) (error in admitting other‑act evidence harmless only if it did not substantially influence verdict)
- People v. Rath, 44 P.3d 1033 (Colo. 2002) (CRE 403 analysis requires viewing evidence at maximum probative value/minimum prejudice)
- People v. Cousins, 181 P.3d 365 (Colo.App. 2007) (distinguishes rule and exception in CRE 404(b))
- People v. Nuanez, 973 P.2d 1260 (Colo. 1999) (examples where dissimilar prior acts may show motive due to factual connection)
- Salcedo v. People, 999 P.2d 833 (Colo. 2000) (discusses harmless‑error review for improperly admitted evidence)