Colorado Court of Appeals - 3-15-12 - People v. Vecellio

People v. Vecellio            Conspiracy / Sexual Assault On A Child / Adult Chat Rooms

Facts: A cop in Fremont County pretended to be a mom who whores out her daughter. On the Adult Friend Finder website, the cop and Mr. Vecellio made contact. The cop claimed to have an incestuous relationship with her daughter, and set up a three way with Mr. Vecellio. Upon attempting to meet the fake mom and daughter, the police arrested Mr. Vecellio. The prosecution charged Mr. Vecellio with conspiracy to commit sexual assault on a child by one in a position of trust, solicitation to commit sexual assault on a child, attempted sexual assault on a child, and enticement of a child.

Issue: Whether, under the conspiracy statute, Colorado follows a unilateral approach or a bilateral approach?

Held: Unilateral.

Reasoning: The Court of Appeals found the issue to be one of first impression, and defined the differences: unilateral only requires one ‘true co-conspirator’; whereas bilateral requires at least two ‘true co-conspirators’. The Court of Appeals followed the unilateral approach.

Issue: Whether the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the prosecution cross-examine Mr. Vecellio about his sexual appetite for three-ways and other non-child, legal sex acts?

Held: Did it help demonize and convict Mr. Vecellio? Then no, no abuse of discretion.

Reasoning: Apparently none of the rape shield analysis applies to anyone accused of a crime. Thus, the more you can soil an accused with his sexual appetites and practices the better. Whereas, under rape shield, you cannot even mention the complaining witness so much as kissed someone without sending the Court, victims advocates, and the shills for the state into a downward spiral of hysteria.

Issue: Whether, with a fake kid, the prosecution provided sufficient evidence to convict Mr. Vecellio of enticement of a child?

Held: Yes.

Reasoning: Ignoring the fact that the legislature accounts for fake kids in other statutes to assign criminal liability and did not under the enticement statute, the Court of Appeals found the evidence to be sufficient. The Court of Appeals hinged its holding on the fact that the child need not perceive the acts, but only that the accused commit such acts to attempt to entice a child.

>Link to People v. Vecellio here<