People v. Roggow, 2013 CO 70

Roggow was the landlord of the family home where eight-year-old A.B. lived and was on friendly terms with the family for over two years.
A.B. and her older brother volunteered to accompany Roggow to a hardware store when he arrived to fix the shower.
At the hardware store, Roggow touched A.B.'s breast and buttocks and spoke to her about future sexual acts while driving to another store.
A.B.’s father trusted Roggow and had previously allowed him to supervise the children and assist with chores at Roggow’s house.
Roggow admitted to A.B.’s father that he discussed intimate body parts with A.B., claiming he was educating her, and A.B. disclosed the conduct to her father.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether position of trust requires an express charge	People argues broad, not limited to express charge.	Roggow contends only explicit supervisory duty suffices.	No express charge required; position can arise from relationship or access.
What defines position of trust under 18-8-405.3	People advocates broad statutory interpretation with special access standard.	Roggow argues narrower, duty-based interpretation.	Broad interpretation accepted; includes special access via existing relationship or conduct.
Sufficiency of evidence to show position of trust in this case	Record shows entrusted with special access to A.B.	Record lacks explicit supervisory charge by father.	Evidence sufficient to support position of trust at time of assault.

People v. Madril, 746 P.2d 1329 (Colo. 1987) (possession of trust based on special access without explicit charge)
Pellman v. People, 252 P.3d 1122 (Colo. 2011) (existing relationship can support position of trust)
People v. Luman, 994 P.2d 432 (Colo. App. 1999) (circumstances show trust through co-residency or proximity)
People v. Martinez, 51 P.3d 1046 (Colo. App. 2001) (special access and trust when offender known to child)
People v. Simon, 266 P.3d 1099 (Colo. 2011) (standard for interpreting position of trust)