People v. Hunter, 307 P.3d 1083

James Hunter was convicted of burglary and multiple sexual-assault offenses after breaking into a neighbor's trailer, assaulting the mother and her five‑year‑old daughter while wearing a mask. Identification relied on DNA; victims did not affirmatively identify him at the time of the assault.
Trial court designated Hunter a Sexually Violent Predator (SVP) under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18‑8‑414.5(1)(a) based in part on the statute's "relationship" criterion (victim was a stranger to the offender).
Colorado Court of Appeals (Hunter II) reversed the SVP designation, holding the statute did not cover situations where the victim knew the offender but could not identify him during the assault.
The Colorado Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide the meaning of "stranger" in the SVP statute and whether the court of appeals erred in reversing the SVP finding.
The Supreme Court construed "stranger" to mean either the victim does not know the offender or the offender does not know the victim at the time of the offense, and concluded the record supported the trial court's finding that Hunter's victims were strangers during the assaults.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
What does "victim was a stranger to the offender" mean in § 18‑8‑414.5(1)(a)(III)?	State: "Stranger" includes the situation where the victim did not know the offender at the time of the offense (i.e., offender not known by victim).	Hunter: "Stranger" means there is no preexisting definable relationship between offender and victim; inability to identify during assault does not create a stranger relationship.	The Court held "stranger" means either the victim is not known to the offender or the offender is not known to the victim at the time of the offense (context at time of assault matters).
Did the record support designating Hunter an SVP under the relationship criterion?	State: Yes — victims did not know or recognize Hunter during the assault (masked, disoriented, child intoxicated/unconscious).	Hunter: Victims had prior limited contact; inability to identify during assault should not convert a known relationship into a stranger relationship.	The Court held record facts (mask, night assault, disorientation, child's age/state, DNA identification) support trial court's finding that victims were strangers during the assault; reinstated SVP designation.

Welby Gardens v. Adams Cnty. Bd. of Equalization, 71 P.3d 992 (Colo. 2003) (statutory interpretation seeks legislative intent and ordinary meaning)
Lombard v. Colo. Outdoor Educ. Ctr., Inc., 187 P.3d 565 (Colo. 2008) (construe statutory provisions as a whole and give effect to the statute)
People v. Tixier, 207 P.3d 844 (Colo. App. 2003) (discussed prior treatment of "stranger" language in SVP context)
People v. Tuffo, 209 P.3d 1226 (Colo. App. 2009) (noting SVP registration and notification serve to protect the community)
Sullivan v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 22 P.3d 535 (Colo. App. 2000) (courts may look to related sources outside the statute for definitions)