People v. Heredia-Cobos
2017 COA 130
| Colo. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Defendant Israel Heredia‑Cobos, the victim Y.P.’s great‑uncle, was tried by jury for sexual assault on a child based on an incident when Y.P. was nine.
- Y.P. reported that while playing on a trampoline at defendant’s home he pushed her down, touched her breast, and tried to put his hand down her pants; she reported the assault over four years later.
- At trial the prosecution called forensic interviewer Lisa Tani, who described her interview techniques and testified she observed no signs that Y.P. had been coached and that Y.P. provided peripheral sensory details in the interview.
- Defense repeatedly argued Y.P. fabricated or adopted details because of coaching by family members and attention received by a friend who reported abuse; defense cross‑examined witnesses to suggest coaching and fabrication.
- The court also admitted CRE 404(b) evidence of prior sexually related acts involving three female relatives (F.V., N.C., and E.V.), with limiting instructions; defendant was convicted and appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of forensic interviewer testimony that the child showed no signs of coaching | Testimony rebutted defense theory that child was coached; admissible to contextualize interview evidence | Testimony impermissibly vouched for the child’s credibility and was inadmissible | Although such testimony ordinarily impermissibly bolsters credibility, defendant opened the door by asserting coaching/fabrication; testimony admissible to rebut that theory |
| Admissibility of prior‑acts (CRE 404(b) / §16‑10‑301) evidence of sexual acts with relatives | Prior acts were admissible to prove intent, absence of mistake, refute fabrication, and show method; probative value outweighed prejudice | Prior acts were too dissimilar or prejudicial to be admitted | Admission of acts involving F.V., N.C., and E.V. did not abuse discretion; even if E.V. evidence erred, any error was harmless |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Quintana, 882 P.2d 1366 (Colo. 1994) (discusses admissibility and relevancy where evidence may be admissible for reasons other than offered)
- People v. Wittrein, 221 P.3d 1076 (Colo. 2009) (experts may not opine on a child victim’s truthfulness on a specific occasion)
- People v. Eppens, 979 P.2d 14 (Colo. 1999) (error to admit testimony vouching that child victim was sincere)
- People v. Snook, 745 P.2d 647 (Colo. 1987) (testimony that children do not fabricate sexual abuse allegations was inadmissible credibility testimony)
- People v. Gaffney, 769 P.2d 1081 (Colo. 1989) (CRE 608(a) does not permit opinion that a witness told the truth on a particular occasion)
- People v. Murphy, 919 P.2d 191 (Colo. 1996) (explains the "opening the door" doctrine to admit otherwise inadmissible evidence)
- People v. Miller, 890 P.2d 84 (Colo. 1995) (selective presentation of facts may justify admitting additional evidence)
- People v. Rath, 44 P.3d 1033 (Colo. 2002) (framework for evaluating other‑act evidence under CRE 404(b))
- Kaufman v. People, 202 P.3d 542 (Colo. 2009) (discusses CRE 404(b) and Spoto factors for admitting other‑act evidence)
- People v. Spoto, 795 P.2d 1314 (Colo. 1990) (sets multi‑pronged test for admissibility of other acts)
- Yusem v. People, 210 P.3d 458 (Colo. 2009) (harmless‑error standard for evidentiary rulings)
- People v. Summitt, 132 P.3d 320 (Colo. 2006) (harmless error review for contested evidence)