People v. Vasseur
2016 COA 107
| Colo. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Tracy Lea Vasseur and her mother operated as Colorado “agents” in an Internet romance scam run largely from Nigeria, receiving wire transfers and forwarding proceeds to associates while keeping a portion.
- Investigators identified 374 victims (including 29 at-risk victims) and a total loss of about $1,063,000; Vasseur pleaded guilty to a pattern of racketeering under COCCA and was sentenced to 15 years, with restitution reserved for later determination.
- The prosecutor submitted Exhibit A, a spreadsheet listing sender information and wire amounts; a CBI agent authenticated the spreadsheet and testified about the investigation and aggregate losses.
- The prosecution later conceded flaws as to 10 listed senders and reduced the restitution request by $52,774.45; the court ordered joint-and-several restitution of $1,010,467.55.
- Vasseur appealed, arguing the district court violated her Sixth Amendment right of confrontation and the Colorado Rules of Evidence by relying on Exhibit A (alleged hearsay, lack of foundation/authentication) at the restitution hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Confrontation Clause bars admission of out-of-court statements at a restitution hearing | Confrontation Clause is a trial right and need not apply at sentencing; prosecutor relied on investigative testimony to establish losses | Vasseur: she was denied right to cross-examine sources whose statements were compiled into Exhibit A | Court: Confrontation Clause is a trial right and does not apply to restitution (part of sentencing); no violation |
| Whether Colorado Rules of Evidence (including hearsay rules) constrain restitution proceedings | Prosecutor: sentencing/restitution proceedings are exempt from the Rules of Evidence under CRE 1101(d)(3) and precedent allowing hearsay at sentencing | Vasseur: Exhibit A contained hearsay, lacked foundation and proper authentication | Court: Rules of evidence do not apply to sentencing/restitution; hearsay admissible; Exhibit A properly considered |
| Whether the prosecution met its burden to prove restitution amount by a preponderance | Prosecution presented spreadsheet, investigator testimony, victim interviews, and defendant admissions to establish losses and causation | Vasseur: challenged identification and completeness of some entries (leading to concession on 10 senders) | Court: After concessions, prosecution met preponderance standard for the amended list; restitution amount affirmed |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion in relying on Exhibit A | Prosecutor: district court has discretion to rely on evidence in restitution determination | Vasseur: reliance on Exhibit A was erroneous due to confrontation/evidentiary defects | Court: No abuse of discretion; restitution order affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Bernal v. People, 44 P.3d 184 (Colo. 2002) (Confrontation Clause review standard and issues of evidentiary error)
- People v. Ray, 252 P.3d 1042 (Colo. 2011) (‘‘right to confrontation is a trial right’’ and does not apply at sentencing)
- People v. Bruebaker, 539 P.2d 1277 (Colo. 1975) (hearsay admissible in sentencing proceedings)
- Roberts v. People, 130 P.3d 1005 (Colo. 2006) (restitution is part of sentence)
- United States v. Battles, 745 F.3d 436 (10th Cir. 2014) (Confrontation Clause does not grant an absolute right to confront witnesses at restitution hearings)