People v. Houser
2013 Colo. App. LEXIS 108
Colo. Ct. App.2013Background
- Houser was convicted by jury of patronizing a prostituted child and the mittimus was later corrected on remand.
- The victim, A.J., was a sixteen-year-old in Denver; she testified she presented as twenty to clients and collaborated with authorities for a plea.
- Emails from Houser admitted he engaged in arranging and paying for sexual acts with A.J. within the charged timeframe.
- A.J. faced charges in Denver and entered a plea deal; details of the plea and prior charges were contested for cross-examination purposes.
- Houser argued he reasonably believed A.J. was eighteen, which would negate criminal liability under age-based statutes; the trial court precluded this defense before trial.
- The trial court ultimately ruled on statutory interpretation and the availability of a reasonable-belief defense in light of conflicting statutes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 18-7-407 prevents a reasonable belief defense to patronizing a prostituted child | Houser argues 18-1-508.5(1) permits the defense | Houser contends age-belief defense should apply despite 18-7-407 | Yes, 18-7-407 precludes the defense |
| Statutory conflict between 18-1-508.5(1) and 18-7-407 | Record should follow the general defense broadly | Specific provision controls, making the defense unavailable | 18-7-407 controls; defense precluded |
| Whether the vagueness challenge to 18-7-401(6) was properly considered | Challenge should be reviewed despite being unpreserved | Cagle/Lesney line require preservation; no departure warranted | Not considered; declined for lack of preservation; preserves efficiency concerns |
| Confrontation rights violated by limiting cross-examination about plea and charges | Limited cross-examination prejudiced credibility of key witness | Restriction was error but harmless given evidence | Constitutional error occurred but harmless beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Whether failure to give lesser-included offense instruction was error | Instruction on lesser offense of attempt should have been given | No rational basis to convict on lesser if charged offense proven | No error; no rational basis to instruct on lesser offense |
| Whether definitional jury instruction on prostitution by a child was plain error | Instruction was improper for multiple theories of liability | Instruction followed statute and Madden; no error | Not plain error; instruction proper |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Garcia, 113 P.3d 775 (Colo.2005) (standard for de novo sufficiency review of affirmative defenses)
- People v. Whatley, 10 P.3d 668 (Colo.App.2000) (evidence may come from the prosecution for affirmative defense)
- People v. Villarreal, 131 P.3d 1119 (Colo.App.2005) (plain error standard; compares trial theory with evidence)