People v. Greer, 262 P.3d 920

Greer, a fast-food manager, subjected two teenage employees, S.D. (14) and S.S. (15–16), to repeated touching and penile rubbing acts at the drive-thru and freezer areas.
S.D. testified that Greer touched her buttocks multiple times, left and returned, and finally rubbed his penis on her buttocks while fully clothed.
S.S. testified that Greer rubbed his penis against the center of her buttocks behind the drive-thru window about twenty to thirty times and seized her hand in the freezer to hold it against his penis.
Charges: count 1 sexual assault on a child (S.D.), count 2 sexual assault on a child—pattern (S.D.), and counts 3–8 unlawful sexual contact involving S.S.; count 3 denied by the jury, counts 4–8 merged into one verdict for unlawful sexual contact without consent.
The jury convicted on all counts except count 3; the trial court merged counts 4–8, leading to post-trial challenges about unanimity and potential double jeopardy.
The Court of Appeals reversed counts 4–8, affirmed the other convictions, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its rulings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the court ensure unanimity for count 1 (S.D.)?	People argue the act election sufficed for unanimity.	Greer contends lack of precise act election undermines unanimity.	Unanimity for count 1 was adequately ensured.
Did the pattern-of-abuse verdict on count 2 require a separate unanimous act for the predicate?	People contend predicate acts were adequately elected; pattern verdict proper.	Greer argues lack of explicit unanimity regarding predicate acts.	Adequate election of predicate act; pattern conviction upheld as harmless error.
Did the merger of counts 4–8 resolve the unanimity problem for S.S. counts?	Merger should eliminate duplicate-unanimity concerns by consolidating acts.	Merger did not fix lack of unanimous specific-act findings for counts 4–8.	Counts 4–8 reversed due to unresolved unanimity; merger did not cure the problem.
Was the expert testimony disclosure issue under Crim. P. 16 properly analyzed?	Prosecution may testify with endorsed witness as expert under discovery rules.	Endorsement as expert required for proper notice and possible prejudice.	No Crim. P. 16 violation; trial court ruling affirmed.

Quintano v. People, 105 P.3d 585 ( Colo. 2005) (pattern of abuse requires separate predicate acts and jury unanimity)
Thomas v. People, 803 P.2d 144 (Colo. 1990) (unanimity where acts could be numerous; proper election or unanimity instruction required)
Kyle v. People, 111 P.3d 491 (Colo. App. 2004) (pattern of sexual abuse unanimity considerations)
Gookins v. People, 111 P.3d 525 (Colo. App. 2004) (trial court may elect acts to support conviction; harmless error standard)
Hinojos-Mendoza v. People, 169 P.3d 662 (Colo. 2007) (unpreserved constitutional challenges and plain error discussed)
Miller v. People, 113 P.3d 743 (Colo. 2005) (plain error review for unpreserved claims; discusses three-part test with emphasis on discretion)
Cagle v. People, 751 P.2d 614 (Colo. 1988) (broad rule against reviewing constitutional issues raised for the first time on appeal)
Brown v. People, 70 P.3d 489 (Colo. App. 2002) (pattern of sexual abuse and unanimity discussion in review)