v. Sims, 2019 COA 66

Background

In 1994 Sims and three others invaded a home, bound occupants, tortured them; two victims were cut, one (J.G.) was raped and murdered; Martinez survived.
DNA recovered from J.G. later matched Sims; police obtained his DNA sample in 2009 and forensic analysis linked him as major/likely source of vaginal/anal swabs.
In December 2012 a grand jury indicted Sims on two counts of first‑degree murder, two counts of felony murder, one count attempted murder, and one count sexual assault (under the 2012 statute language).
In July 2014 the prosecutor returned to the grand jury and filed a “superseding indictment” that contained only a sexual assault count referencing the 1994 statute (the version in effect when the crime occurred).
At trial Sims argued the superseding indictment divested jurisdiction over the original murder counts, raised a statute‑of‑limitations defense to the sexual‑assault count, and sought to admit testimony under the rape‑shield exceptions that J.G. was a prostitute who traded sex for drugs; the court excluded that testimony and a jury convicted Sims on all counts.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the "superseding indictment" divest the district court of subject‑matter jurisdiction over the original indictment's murder and attempted‑murder counts?	The People argued each count is a separate indictment and a partial supersede is permissible; court retained jurisdiction.	Sims argued the superseding indictment supplanted the original indictment and nullified jurisdiction over the murder counts.	Court held prosecutor may supersede individual counts; label "superseding" is not dispositive; jurisdiction remained and indictments may coexist.
Was the sexual‑assault prosecution time‑barred by the 1994 statute of limitations?	People argued 2001 amendment eliminating limitations when identity is determined by DNA (in whole or in part) applied because DNA helped fix Sims as a suspect.	Sims argued his identity was known earlier (1995) and DNA merely confirmed prior suspicion, so the DNA‑exception does not apply.	Court held "determined in whole or in part" by DNA covers DNA that helps settle identity; statute‑of‑limitations exception applied.
Did the trial court abuse discretion by excluding roommate testimony about J.G.’s prior prostitution under the rape‑shield statute?	People argued the roommate’s testimony did not show sexual contact with Sims or timely consensual sex; therefore it was inadmissible and excluded properly.	Sims argued the testimony suggested prior consensual sexual contact with Sims (nickname "Sparky") and could explain presence of his DNA.	Court held the testimony lacked the necessary link to Sims and temporal connection; exclusion under the rape‑shield statute was not an abuse of discretion.
Did exclusion of that testimony abridge Sims’s right to present a defense?	People argued only relevant admissible evidence must be allowed; exclusion did not abridge right.	Sims argued exclusion prevented evidence supporting his theory that DNA resulted from consensual contact.	Court held exclusion did not abridge the right because the proffered evidence was not relevant or admissible.

Key Cases Cited

Wood v. People, 255 P.3d 1136 (Colo. 2011) (describing when a court has subject‑matter jurisdiction)
Garcia v. Dist. Court, 403 P.2d 215 (Colo. 1965) (district court has original jurisdiction in all criminal cases)
Gainey v. United States, 318 F.2d 795 (10th Cir. 1963) (each count of an indictment is regarded as a separate indictment)
United States v. Bowen, 946 F.2d 734 (10th Cir. 1991) (a superseding indictment does not automatically void an earlier indictment)
Jones v. United States, 99 A.3d 679 (D.C. 2014) (multiple indictments may coexist; superseding indictment is not dispositive of earlier ones)
People v. Melillo, 25 P.3d 769 (Colo. 2001) (rape‑shield statute creates presumption of irrelevance for victim's sexual conduct)
People v. Braley, 879 P.2d 410 (Colo. App. 1993) (evidence that victim prostituted herself to unidentified men is inadmissible)
People v. Ayala, 770 P.2d 1265 (Colo. 1989) (cannot base presumptions on presumptions or inference on inference)