Perez v. People, 2015 CO 45

Victim C.B., age 14, testified Perez forced her into his car after offering drugs, drove to an unfamiliar location, sexually assaulted her, then returned her home; Perez was identified from a photo lineup.
Perez was charged with (1) sexual assault on a child, (2) second-degree kidnapping (with a sexual-offense enhancer), and (3) enticement of a child; defense argued consent and drug-motivated conduct.
The prosecution sought and the trial court admitted CRE 404(b) evidence: prior intrusive encounters with a different adult (O.D.) in 2003, limited by the court to proving intent for the enticement count only.
The prosecutor, however, in opening and closing statements repeatedly argued the prior incidents showed a pattern "lessons learned" and urged the jury to apply that evidence broadly to the charged offenses.
The Colorado Court of Appeals held the 404(b) admission was an abuse of discretion and reversed only the enticement conviction, but affirmed the sexual-assault and kidnapping convictions, presuming the jury followed limiting instructions.
Colorado Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed the court of appeals: because all counts shared similar sexual-conduct elements and the prosecutor urged broader use of the 404(b) evidence, the erroneous admission was not harmless as to the remaining convictions; those convictions were vacated and the case remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether improper admission of 404(b) evidence limited to one count requires reversal of other convictions	The People argued prior acts were admissible to prove intent for enticement and relevant to rebut defense; limiting instruction sufficed to confine use	Perez argued the 404(b) evidence was unfairly prejudicial, minimally probative, and that prosecutor’s statements invited improper broader use, infecting all counts	The Court held the error was not harmless as to sexual-assault and kidnapping convictions and vacated them because counts shared sexual-conduct elements and prosecution urged broader use of the evidence

Kaufman v. People, 202 P.3d 542 (Colo. 2009) (discusses dangers of admitting prior-bad-acts evidence)
People v. Rath, 44 P.3d 1033 (Colo. 2002) (analyzes probative value versus unfair prejudice for 404(b) evidence)
People v. Spoto, 795 P.2d 1314 (Colo. 1990) (articulates four-part test for 404(b) admissibility)
People v. Snyder, 874 P.2d 1076 (Colo. 1994) (trial court discretion in evidence admissibility)
People v. Gaffney, 769 P.2d 1081 (Colo. 1989) (harmless error standard when defense objects)
Yusem v. People, 210 P.3d 458 (Colo. 2009) (limiting instructions cannot save irrelevant prior-act evidence)
Qwest Servs. Corp. v. Blood, 252 P.3d 1071 (Colo. 2011) (presumption juries follow limiting instructions)
People v. Dunlap, 975 P.2d 723 (Colo. 1999) (same presumption regarding jury instructions)
Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968) (narrow exception to presumption that juries follow limiting instructions)