People v. Relaford
2016 COA 99
Colo. Ct. App.2016Background
- Defendant David Relaford was convicted by a jury of 27 offenses for sexual assaults of two child victims (ages 7 and 8) and sentenced under the Colorado Sex Offender Lifetime Supervision Act (SOLSA) to an aggregate indeterminate term totaling decades to life.
- Both victims gave forensic interviews; recordings were played at trial. One victim reported witnessing assaults on the other. Both described use of sex toys and viewing pornography with Relaford.
- Police executed a warrant search of Relaford’s home and seized multiple sex toys, pornographic videos and magazines, and Vaseline; some items were found in locations matching victims’ descriptions.
- DNA testing linked one sex toy to Relaford and one victim and another toy to the other victim. A nurse’s exam of one child showed findings consistent with sexual assault.
- A therapist testified as an expert about memory, suggestibility, grooming, typical victim behavior, and circumstances in which children fabricate allegations; the court admitted testimony that the expert had not encountered fabrication outside limited contexts. Defense objected to one question but did not object to the broader fabrication testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of expert testimony about fabrication | Expert testimony explained typical child behavior and fabrication is rare; testimony assisted jury credibility assessment | Testimony improperly opined that victims were not lying and vouched for credibility | Testimonial opinion that essentially vouched for victims was improper but admission was not plain error given corroborating evidence |
| Admission of sex toys and pornography found at home | Items corroborated victims’ descriptions and locations; some toys and porn admitted were directly identified by victims or matched descriptions | Evidence of other sex toys and pornography was irrelevant and impermissible propensity/bad-act evidence | Toys identified by victims and some pornography admissible; admission of additional items may have been error but was harmless given strong corroborating evidence |
| SOLSA constitutionality | State: SOLSA has been repeatedly upheld; Act is constitutional | Relaford: SOLSA violates due process, equal protection, prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment, and separation of powers | Court declines to revisit settled precedent and rejects facial constitutional challenge to SOLSA |
| Plain-error review for unpreserved evidentiary objections | Prosecutor relied on other properly admitted evidence; jury properly instructed; overall fairness preserved | Relaford: failure to object at trial requires plain-error standard; the expert misled jury on credibility and substantially affected verdict | No plain error — error was not obvious under then-existing law and other independent corroborating evidence undercuts any claim of prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Welsh, 80 P.3d 296 (Colo. 2003) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings)
- People v. Wittrein, 221 P.3d 1076 (Colo. 2009) (experts may not opine on child victim truthfulness)
- People v. Snook, 745 P.2d 647 (Colo. 1987) (expert testimony that children tend not to fabricate is impermissible character-for-truthfulness evidence)
- People v. Mintz, 165 P.3d 829 (Colo. App. 2007) (CRE 702 allows experts to explain typical demeanor of sexually abused children)
- People v. Koon, 724 P.2d 1367 (Colo. App. 1986) (permissibility of expert testimony about behavioral patterns of child incest victims to aid juror understanding)
- People v. Cook, 197 P.3d 269 (Colo. App. 2008) (harmless-error analysis for improper credibility-opinion testimony)
- People v. Gaffney, 769 P.2d 1081 (Colo. 1989) (expert credibility statements may be harmless when independent corroboration exists)
- People v. Greenlee, 200 P.3d 363 (Colo. 2009) (distinguishing res gestae from CRE 404(b) and discussing relevance of evidence linked to the charged crime)