Court Opinion

ID: 9845789
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:28:18.5982+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:22.038417
License: Public Domain

Justice LOHR
specially concurring:
I concur in the judgment of the court, but not in the majority opinion. I agree with the definition of corroborative evidence for purposes of section 13-25-129(l)(b)(II), 6A C.R.S. (1987), as “any evidence, direct or by proof of surrounding facts and circumstances, that tends to establish the act described by the child in the statement occurred.” Maj. op. at 952. I also agree that “the quantum of corroborative evidence needed to support admission of a child’s hearsay statement must be enough to induce a person of ordinary prudence and caution conscientiously to entertain a reasonable belief that the sexual abuse that is the subject of the child’s hearsay statement occurred.” Maj. op. at 953. In this case, the testimony of the experts concerning the behavioral changes evidenced by J.L. and E.E. supplied the requisite quantum of corroborative evidence to satisfy the requirement of section 13 — 25—129(l)(b)(II) and support the admission into evidence of the children’s out-of-court statements at issue. For this reason, I concur in the court’s judgment.
QUINN, J., joins in this special concurrence.