People v. Salazar

Summary

The Colorado Supreme Court held that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting evidence of an alleged alternative suspect's prior sexual conduct in a sexual-assault prosecution. The court concluded that the evidence had minimal probative value on identity and posed a substantial risk of confusing or misleading the jury under CRE 403, made its rule absolute, and remanded for further proceedings.

Holdings

1. The Colorado Supreme Court properly exercised original jurisdiction to review the trial court's evidentiary ruling because the People could not obtain an interlocutory appeal and an erroneous evidentiary ruling might not have an adequate remedy on appeal.
2. Evidence that an alternative suspect had motive or opportunity, combined with alleged prior sexual conduct that is not distinctive or unusual enough to constitute a perpetrator signature, is not sufficiently relevant to connect that suspect to the charged offense.
3. The evidence was not admissible under the rape shield statute's physical-evidence exception because that exception is limited to evidence concerning the source or origin of semen, pregnancy, disease, or similar physical evidence; identity evidence that does not concern such physical aspects must proceed under the statute's material-issue provision.
4. Even assuming the alleged prior sexual conduct was relevant under section 18-3-407(2), it had to be excluded because its minimal probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of confusing the issues and misleading the jury.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Colorado Supreme Court should exercise original jurisdiction under C.A.R. 21 to review the trial court's pretrial evidentiary ruling.
2. Whether evidence of an alternative suspect's alleged prior sexual conduct with someone other than the victim was relevant and admissible to challenge the victim's identification.
3. Whether the evidence, even if relevant under the rape shield statute, was subject to exclusion because its probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of confusing the issues and misleading the jury.
4. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by admitting the evidence.

Disposition

writ_granted