Background

• Benjamin Romero lived with friends and spent time with their teenage daughters; victims C.T. and J.W. accused Romero of various sexual touching incidents.
• The State charged Romero with three counts of sexual assault on a child (one as part of a pattern of abuse and two individual counts).
• At trial the court admitted two recorded exhibits (a forensic interview of C.T. and a recording of Romero describing past predatory acts) and allowed jurors unfettered access to those recordings during deliberations.
• A detective who conducted C.T.’s forensic interview testified over objection about the concept of "grooming" and its stages without being qualified as an expert.
• Romero was convicted on all counts, sentenced to 36 years to life, appealed, and the Colorado Supreme Court granted certiorari on two issues: juror access to recorded statements and admissibility of lay testimony on grooming.

Issues

| Issue | People

rgues | Romero rgues | Held |

|---|---:|---:|---:|

| Whether a trial court commits plain error by failing to sua sponte limit jurors' access to recorded statements during deliberations | Unrestricted access was not plainly erroneous absent demonstration of obvious prejudice | Failure to restrict recordings sua sponte was plain error and prejudicial | Not plain error where defendant did not object at trial; affirmed (no sua sponte duty) |

| Whether a police officer may testify as a lay witness about "grooming" without expert qualification | Officer's grooming testimony was admissible as lay opinion based on experience and helpful to jury | Grooming involves specialized knowledge; testimony required expert qualification | Abuse of discretion to admit grooming testimony as lay opinion; officer should have been qualified as an expert; reversal and new trial required |

Key Cases Cited

• Frasco v. People, 165 P.3d 701 (Colo. 2007) (standard for trial court discretion over jury access to exhibits)
• Hagos v. People, 288 P.3d 116 (Colo. 2012) (plain-error review and harmless-error framework)
• Venalonzo v. People, 388 P.3d 868 (Colo. 2017) (test distinguishing lay vs. expert opinion under CRE 701 and 702)
• DeBella v. People, 233 P.3d 664 (Colo. 2010) (juror access to evidence and related analysis)
• People v. Stewart, 55 P.3d 107 (Colo. 2002) (abuse of discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
• United States v. Batton, 602 F.3d 1191 (10th Cir. 2010) (expert testimony on grooming and predator methods admissible)
• United States v. Hitt, 473 F.3d 146 (5th Cir. 2006) (approval of expert testimony explaining grooming and offender methods)
• People v. Ujaama, 302 P.3d 296 (Colo. App. 2012) (discussion of plain-error and the need for clear-cut error)