An Eagle County judge improperly allowed a law enforcement witness to testify about her belief that the victim’s account supported the filing of sex assault charges, Colorado’s second-highest court decided on Thursday in reversing the defendant’s conviction.

Previous court decisions in Colorado have established that prosecutors may not present evidence of the “screening” process that leads to criminal charges because the implication is that only someone deemed guilty is charged with an offense. Further, investigating officers may not testify about a witness’s credibility.

However, both of those occcured in the 2020 trial of Christian Arman Garcia-Chevez, where the dispute revolved around whether he and the victim had consensual sex or whether Garcia-Chevez sexually assaulted her.

A three-judge panel for the Court of Appeals, in ordering a new trial, also cautioned the prosecution against committing misconduct.

The question at Garcia-Chevez’s trial was whether the sex between him and the alleged victim was consensual. Although a jury found Garcia-Chevez guilty, it did not believe he used force, and it acquitted him of other offenses against the victim. He received a sentence of 10 years to life in prison.

Case: People v. Garcia-Chevez

Decided: July 20, 2023

Jurisdiction: Eagle County

Ruling: 3-0

Judges: Lino S. Lipinsky de Orlov (author)

Elizabeth L. Harris

Michael H. Berger

Background: Jeffco sex assault conviction reversed after appeals court says judge allowed expert to vouch for victim

The prosecution questioned Karen Waddell, a former sheriff’s detective who had since joined the district attorney’s office, about how she developed probable cause to arrest Garcia-Chevez.

“The sexual assault was obviously her (the victim’s) description of the events, of the incident, and then his corroboration of what took place, his description of the event,” Waddell responded.

Garcia-Chevez’s attorney objected, but County Court Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez allowed Waddell to continue.

Waddell elaborated that she was able to verify “both individuals were telling me the basic information that supported the criminal -“

The defense interrupted her again with an objection. Olguin-Fresquez ruled Waddell was not commenting on the parties’ credibility, but just the fact that “they corroborated” each other.

On appeal, Garcia-Chevez argued Waddell’s testimony effectively gave the jury reason to believe the victim over Garcia-Chevez. The Colorado Attorney General’s Office denied that her statements were improper, as she was merely describing “what prompted her to take the next step in the investigation, which was Defendant’s arrest.”

The Court of Appeals panel disagreed with the government’s benign interpretation of the testimony.

Waddell “offered an opinion on the only issue the jury had to resolve on the sexual assault count: whether (the victim) was credible in claiming that she had not consented to engage in sex,” wrote Judge Lino S. Lipinsky de Orlov in the July 20 opinion.

It was not true, he elaborated, that the two parties’ statements “corroborated” each other, given the discrepancy over consent.

“By testifying she had probable cause to arrest Garcia-Chevez,” Lipinsky explained, “the investigator effectively told the jury that she believed (the victim’s) allegations but not Garcia-Chevez’s version of events.”

Given the lack of other evidence against Garcia-Chevez, the panel believed Waddell’s testimony likely affected the verdict. It ordered a new trial.

Garcia-Chevez also argued the prosecutor committed misconduct by asking the jury to place itself in the shoes of the victim – which is inappropriate – and by inserting his own legal views of Garcia-Chevez’s arrest. The panel did not address whether the prosecutor crossed the line, but suggested the allegations had merit.

“On remand, we are confident the prosecutor will conform to, and the trial court will enforce, the legal standards applicable to prosecutorial misconduct,” Lipinsky wrote.

Heidi McCollum, the elected district attorney for the 5th Judicial District, did not respond to an email asking her to identify the prosecutor at trial.

The case is People v. Garcia-Chevez.