2017 COA 147
Colo. Ct. App.2017Background
- Defendant Ronald Laroy Lewis posted a Craigslist ad seeking a "barely legal" sexual partner; a Douglas County detective posed online as a 14‑year‑old "Kayla."
- After exchanging explicit messages and images, Lewis sent an explicit photo of himself and arranged a meeting; police arrested him in Jefferson County and charged him in Douglas County with internet sexual exploitation and internet luring of a child.
- Lewis's defense was that he did not actually believe the person was 14; the jury convicted him on both charges.
- At trial the court instructed the jury, based on § 18‑1‑202(11), that proof of the county where the offense occurred is not an element and need not be proven by the prosecution unless the statute says otherwise.
- The jury was given unsupervised access to Lewis’s videotaped custodial statement during deliberations; defense counsel expressly acquiesced at trial.
- Lewis also complained on appeal about prosecutorial comments at closing that he said implied guilt from the exercise (or non‑exercise) of constitutional rights to remain silent; no contemporaneous objections were made at trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Lewis) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether venue (county) is an element requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt | Venue is procedural under § 18‑1‑202(11); not an element and need not be proven to the jury | Venue is an element of the crimes; Sixth Amendment vicinage clause requires proof to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt | Court held statute constitutional; venue is not a substantive element and need not be proven to the jury |
| Sufficiency of evidence proving offenses occurred in Douglas County | No statutory burden to prove county; Lewis waived venue challenge by not timely moving | Prosecution failed to prove venue beyond reasonable doubt | Court rejected challenge — prosecution had no duty to prove venue and issue was waived |
| Whether jury could have unsupervised, unlimited access to defendant’s videotaped statement during deliberations | Video was admissible; jury may view defendant’s own out‑of‑court statements without special protections | Unrestricted access risked undue emphasis and prejudiced defendant | Defense waived claim by expressly consenting; on merits, Colorado precedent permits unrestricted access to admissible custodial statements |
| Prosecutor’s closing comments implying guilt from silence/self‑incrimination | Comments concerned the content and omissions in Lewis’s lengthy statement (he did not invoke Miranda); comment permissible | Comments improperly implied guilt from exercising Fifth Amendment rights | No plain error: Lewis spoke at length after waiving Miranda; prosecutor commented on what he said/omitted, not on invocation of silence |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Reed, 132 P.3d 347 (Colo. 2006) (discusses Colorado legislature’s 1992 change treating venue as procedural and waivable)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966) (establishes warnings re: right to remain silent and right to counsel)
- Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (U.S. 2010) (a suspect who understands Miranda warnings and does not invoke them may waive the right to remain silent by speaking)
- Rael v. People, 395 P.3d 772 (Colo. 2017) (approves unrestricted jury access to a defendant’s admissible out‑of‑court statements)
- People v. Ortega, 597 P.2d 1034 (Colo. 1979) (held prosecutor’s comments could impermissibly infringe Fifth Amendment where defendant made limited statements and then remained silent)