People v. Heywood
2014 COA 99
Colo. Ct. App.2014Background
- Heywood streamed live webcam images of himself masturbating in an online chat room restricted to age 18+; a Jefferson County investigator posed as a female using two accounts.
- The investigator, posing as “Tina Gallagher,” told Heywood she was "14 f" while viewing the live stream; Heywood could have terminated access but did not do so for over five minutes after learning the claimed age.
- Heywood was convicted under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-3-405.4(1)(b) for knowingly "importuning, inviting, or enticing" a person he knew or believed to be under 15 to view his intimate parts via a computer network.
- On appeal Heywood challenged sufficiency of the evidence; because he had not raised sufficiency at trial, the court applied plain-error review (relying on People v. Lacallo).
- The court interpreted the statutory terms and concluded they require active conduct (pressing, urging, soliciting, or otherwise inducement) rather than mere passive failure to terminate transmission.
- Holding: the undisputed evidence showed at most that Heywood failed to stop the stream after being told the viewer was 14; that passive continuation did not satisfy the statutory elements, so the conviction was reversed and judgment of acquittal ordered.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence proved Heywood "knowingly importuned, invited, or enticed" a person he knew/believed to be under 15 to view his intimate parts | Prosecution: continuing the webcam stream and continuing communications after learning the viewer's age amounted to extending the initial invitation — satisfying concurrence of act and mens rea | Heywood: initial invitation preceded any knowledge of age; merely failing to disconnect after being told "14" is not active importuning, inviting, or enticing | Court: Statutory terms unambiguous; they require active inducement. Passive failure to terminate does not satisfy the elements; evidence insufficient. |
| Review standard when sufficiency claim is unpreserved | AG: Because Heywood did not raise sufficiency at trial, review is limited to plain error (citing Lacallo) | Heywood: sufficiency challenge should be addressed on appeal; but court proceeds under plain error framework | Court: Applied plain-error review (following Lacallo) and found error both obvious and prejudicial because evidence was insufficient; reversed and ordered acquittal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dempsey v. People, 117 P.3d 800 (Colo. 2005) (standard for de novo sufficiency review)
- People v. Lacallo, 338 P.3d 442 (Colo. App. 2014) (plain-error limitation for unpreserved sufficiency challenges discussed)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (constitutional sufficiency standard: whether any rational trier of fact could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
- People v. Casias, 312 P.3d 208 (Colo. App. 2012) (mens rea must exist at time of actus reus)
- People v. Rockne, 315 P.3d 172 (Colo. App. 2012) (interpretation of written transcript is a question of law)
- People v. Vecellio, 292 P.3d 1004 (Colo. App. 2012) (statutory interpretation principles and giving words ordinary meaning)