People v. Trujillo, 369 P.3d 693

Defendant Ruby Lynn Trujillo worked at an assisted‑living facility and took a resident’s debit card and $250 in cash; she used the debit card to make about $270 in purchases. The resident denied giving permission or lending the card.
Trujillo was charged with identity theft (felony), theft from an at‑risk adult, and unauthorized use of a financial transaction device (misdemeanor); the device use count was dismissed pretrial.
Before trial Trujillo moved to dismiss the identity‑theft charge on equal protection grounds, arguing it punished the same conduct as the dismissed misdemeanor but carried a harsher penalty; the motion was denied.
At trial the resident testified she never gave her debit card to anyone; Trujillo later argued that testimony was improper character evidence.
A jury convicted Trujillo of identity theft and theft from an at‑risk adult; the court sentenced her to three years’ probation and 90 hours of community service.
On appeal Trujillo raised (1) evidentiary error—admission of the resident’s testimony—and (2) an as‑applied equal protection challenge to the identity‑theft statute. The court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admission of resident’s testimony that she never gave her debit card	Prosecution: testimony was relevant to show what happened and the resident’s regular practice	Trujillo: testimony was character evidence (showing she is careful) and inadmissible	Admission was not an abuse of discretion; testimony was habit evidence (CRE 406), not improper character evidence
As‑applied equal protection challenge to identity‑theft statute	People: statute valid; targets harms to account holders and permits greater penalty	Trujillo: identity theft and unauthorized device use punish the same conduct but with different penalties, so unequal treatment	No equal protection violation. The statutes protect different victims/harms (identity/account‑holder harm vs. fraud on provider); legislature may rationally impose harsher penalty for identity theft

People v. Ibarra, 849 P.2d 33 (Colo. 1993) (standards for reviewing evidentiary rulings)
People v. T.R., 860 P.2d 559 (Colo. App. 1993) (distinguishing habit evidence from character evidence)
People v. Pipkin, 762 P.2d 736 (Colo. App. 1988) (permission/authorization concept)
People v. Novitskiy, 81 P.3d 1070 (Colo. App. 2003) (unauthorized use statute protects the provider of cash/property/services)
People v. Mozee, 723 P.2d 117 (Colo. 1986) (legislature may impose harsher penalties for graver harms)
Onesimo Romero v. People, 746 P.2d 534 (Colo. 1987) (as‑applied equal protection analysis for overlapping statutes)