People v. Raehal
2017 COA 18
Colo. Ct. App.2017Background
- Defendant Bradford Steven Raehal lived in the basement of S.F.’s home and was arrested for failing to register as a sex offender; shortly thereafter S.F. disclosed repeated sexual assaults by Raehal.
- Forensic interview revealed Raehal took nude digital photographs of S.F.; police obtained a warrant and seized a digital camera, recovering deleted sexual images of S.F.
- J.H., another boy living in the same house, later reported multiple incidents of sexual abuse by Raehal; both victims described similar contextual facts (sem i‑trailer, videogames, lotion rubbing).
- Raehal was charged in separate cases for the S.F. and J.H. incidents; the prosecution moved to join; the district court granted joinder over defense objection.
- A jury convicted Raehal of sexual assault on a child by one in a position of trust (two counts), sexual assault as part of a pattern of abuse (two counts), and two counts of sexual exploitation of a child (relating to the photos). He was also adjudicated a habitual sex offender and designated a sexually violent predator and sentenced to 112.5 years to life.
- On appeal the court affirmed convictions but vacated the sexually violent predator designation for lack of on‑the‑record findings and remanded for proper findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Joinder of S.F. and J.H. cases | Joinder proper because evidence of S.F.’s acts (including testimony and photos) was admissible and no undue prejudice | Joinder prejudiced defendant because explicit photos of S.F. would not be admissible in J.H.’s trial and required separate 404(b) analysis | Joinder not an abuse of discretion; photos corroborative and admissible; no undue prejudice; limiting instruction omission not plain error |
| Seizure of digital camera | Warrant authorized seizure of computer devices, storage media and images; camera reasonably within scope | Camera outside warrant scope or, if lawfully seized, later forensic analysis violated the 14‑day execution rule | Camera lawfully seized as technological container; delayed off‑site forensic analysis did not dissipate probable cause and did not require a new warrant |
| Timeliness of search of seized media | Subsequent analysis permissible when original warrant authorized examination of devices for images | Search after warrant expiration required a new warrant; delayed search was unlawful | Execution timely; later off‑site analysis consistent with the original warrant and probable cause remained intact |
| Admissibility/factual predicate for 404(b) other‑acts evidence | Prosecution’s offer of proof established prior acts by preponderance; convictions and records suf ficient | Offer of proof inaccurate (overstated convictions) so prior‑act admission improper | District court correctly found prior acts by preponderance despite imprecise prosecutor statement; admission proper |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Roark, 643 P.2d 756 (Colo. 1982) (photographs admissible to graphically corroborate a witness’s verbal description)
- People v. Spoto, 795 P.2d 1314 (Colo. 1990) (articulated test for admitting other‑acts evidence in certain contexts)
- People v. Gall, 30 P.3d 145 (Colo. 2001) (officers may search containers and technological devices reasonably likely to contain items described in a warrant)
- United States v. Grimmett, 439 F.3d 1263 (10th Cir. 2006) (original warrant authorizes later computer search when evidence sought is within original scope)
- United States v. Brewer, 588 F.3d 1165 (8th Cir. 2009) (delay between seizure and off‑site search of electronic media does not necessarily dissipate probable cause)
- Kinney v. People, 187 P.3d 548 (Colo. 2008) (prior‑act evidence may be admitted even after acquittal on related charges)
- People v. Tuffo, 209 P.3d 1226 (Colo. App. 2009) (statutory requirement that court make specific on‑the‑record findings before designating someone a sexually violent predator)