Opinion ID: 2823797
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: All Three Counts for Which Perez Was Convicted Include a Similar Element Regarding Sexual Conduct.

Text: Â¶32Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â All three counts in this case arose during a short timeframe, and all three charged Perez with having the intent to have illegal sexual contact with C.B. The counts for sexual assault on a child, enticement of a child, andÂ second-degree kidnapping with the sexual assault enhancing factor all stemmed from a series of interrelated events after Perez pulled his car up next to C.B. Â¶33Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â More importantly, the jury had to navigate three counts that each required the prosecution to prove similar elements. The counts of sexual assault on a child and enticement of a child both have an element involving sexual assault, and the charged enhancing factor for second-degree kidnapping requires the kidnapped person to be a victim of a sexual offense. Specifically, to prove every count charged, the People had to show that Perez intended to or did subject C.B. to sexual conduct: sexual assault on a child requires proof that Perez knowingly subjected C.B. toÂ Â âsexual contact,â Â§ 18-3-405(1) (emphasis added);Â enticement of a child requires proof that Perez tried to get C.B. to enter his vehicle âwith the intent to commit sexual assault or unlawful sexual contact,â Â§ 18-3-305(1) (emphasis added); and kidnapping with the enhancing factor requires proof that Perez took away C.B. with intent to conceal her from her parents and, during this encounter, C.B. was subjected to a âsexual offense,â Â§ 18-3-302(2), (3)(a) (emphasis added). 7 In other words, all three counts required the prosecution to prove similar elements regarding sexual conduct. Â¶34Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Hence, the danger that the jury conflated the different elements of the three charged counts is substantial, increasing the risk that the 404(b) evidence played an impermissible role in the jury convicting Perez on the remaining two counts. We now explain why the prosecutorâs actions amplified this risk and caused the trial courtâs error not to be harmless.