v. People, 2019 CO 100

While at a friend’s apartment, petitioner Lance Margerum forcibly kissed and groped E.S.; she fought him off and later testified against him.
After that incident, Margerum grabbed, choked, and punched his sister T.M.; she escaped after prolonged struggle.
E.S. testified for the prosecution while on probation in Colorado for a misdemeanor forgery conviction; defense was allowed to cross-examine about the underlying facts of the forgery but not about the conviction or her probationary status.
A jury convicted Margerum of unlawful sexual contact (E.S.), third-degree assault and felony menacing (T.M.); he was acquitted of some other charged counts.
The court of appeals affirmed; Colorado Supreme Court granted certiorari and held (1) a prosecution witness’s probation in the same sovereign is always relevant impeachment evidence, but the trial court’s exclusion here was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, and (2) convictions for assault and menacing may stand together where the facts support both harms.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a prosecution witness’s probationary status may be used to impeach credibility	Margerum: exclusion deprived him of meaningful cross-examination and confrontation	People: probation status is not automatically relevant; requires a logical connection to motive/bias	Court: If a witness is on probation in the same sovereign as the prosecution, probationary status is always relevant to impeachment; exclusion here was error but harmless beyond a reasonable doubt
Whether a single act can support convictions for both assault and menacing	Margerum: one physical act cannot sustain both because menacing ends where assault (bodily injury) begins	People: statutes protect different interests (bodily injury vs. fear of serious bodily injury); both can be supported by the same conduct	Court: No statutory or doctrinal bar; where the record supports both bodily injury and intent/conduct to place victim in fear, both convictions may stand

Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 (1974) (cross-examination is principal means to test witness credibility; probationary status can indicate partiality)
Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (1986) (standard for harmlessness of constitutional Confrontation Clause errors)
Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967) (constitutional error is harmless only if found beyond a reasonable doubt)
People v. James, 497 P.2d 1256 (Colo. 1972) (single transaction may violate multiple statutes unless exceptions apply)
People v. Kinney, 187 P.3d 548 (Colo. 2008) (discusses the "might have been influenced" nexus for probationary witnesses)
People v. Shawn, 107 P.3d 1033 (Colo. App. 2004) (menacing focuses on actor's intent and conduct; victim's perception is relevant)