Peo v. Wilds

• Court: Colorado Court of Appeals
• Decided: April 16, 2026
• Docket: 24CA1280
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

24CA1280 Peo v Wilds 04-16-2026

COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS

Court of Appeals No. 24CA1280 Boulder County District Court No. 22CR445 Honorable Thomas F. Mulvahill, Judge Honorable Nancy W. Salomone, Judge

The People of the State of Colorado,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

John Christoper Wilds,

Defendant-Appellant.

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED

Division II Opinion by JUDGE KUHN Fox and Sullivan, JJ., concur

NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e) Announced April 16, 2026

Philip J. Weiser, Attorney General, Josiah Beamish, Assistant Attorney General, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Carrie Skahan, Alternate Defense Counsel, Colorado Springs, Colorado, for Defendant-Appellant ¶1 Defendant, John Christoper Wilds, was convicted of first

degree criminal trespass. She now appeals this conviction.1 We

affirm.

I. Background

¶2 In February 2022, Jose Lopez, the victim, woke up around

3 a.m. to get ready for work. He turned on his car and went back

into his home for a few minutes to finish getting ready. Wilds, who

claimed that vehicle exhaust triggered her seizures, walked over to

Lopez’s home. Wilds “opened the outer door and went into the

inner door and banged as loud as [she] could on the inner door.”

Wilds was standing on an enclosed porch or mudroom as she

banged on the inner door. Both Wilds and Lopez called 911 to

report the incident, and deputies soon arrived to question the

parties involved.

¶3 Wilds was charged with first degree criminal trespass, and she

was convicted after a bench trial. § 18-4-502(1)(a), C.R.S. 2025.

1 Wilds’s pronouns are she/her.

1 II. Analysis

¶4 Wilds contends that (1) there was insufficient evidence to

convict her of first degree criminal trespass; (2) the court violated

her constitutional right to present a defense when it wrongfully

excluded evidence at trial; and (3) the cumulative effect of these

errors requires that her conviction be vacated or reversed. We are

not persuaded.

A. Sufficiency of the Evidence

¶5 Wilds argues that there was insufficient evidence to convict

her of first degree criminal trespass because the prosecution did not

prove that she knowingly entered Lopez’s home. She argues that

she did not know that the mudroom was part of the dwelling or that

she was trespassing by going through the outer door. Wilds also

argues that Lopez was the “only” eyewitness at trial, and his

testimony was contradictory to statements he had previously given.

¶6 The People respond that there was sufficient evidence to prove

that Wilds committed first degree criminal trespass. They assert

that the mudroom that Wilds entered to knock on the inner door

was part of Lopez’s dwelling. And because Wilds did not have

2 permission to enter Lopez’s dwelling, she committed first degree

criminal trespass. We agree with the People.

1. Applicable Law and Standard of Review

¶7 “A person commits the crime of first degree criminal trespass

[when] such person . . . [k]nowingly and unlawfully enters or

remains in a dwelling of another.” § 18-4-502(1)(a). A dwelling is a

“building which is used, intended to be used, or usually used by a

person for habitation.” § 18-1-901(3)(g), C.R.S. 2025. And a

building is defined as “a structure which has the capacity to

contain, and is designed for the shelter of, man, animals, or

property.” § 18-4-101(1), C.R.S. 2025.

¶8 We apply the substantial evidence test to determine if the

evidence was “sufficient both in quantity and quality to sustain the

defendant’s conviction.” Clark v. People, 232 P.3d 1287, 1291

(Colo. 2010). In applying this test, we review the record de novo

and consider “whether the relevant evidence, both direct and

circumstantial, when viewed as a whole and in the light most

favorable to the prosecution, is substantial and sufficient to support

a conclusion by a reasonable mind that the defendant is guilty of

the charge beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (quoting People v.

3 Bennett, 515 P.2d 466, 469 (Colo. 1973)); see McCoy v. People, 2019

CO 44, ¶ 17.

2. Sufficient Evidence Supported Wilds’s Conviction

¶9 First, Wilds argues that the court was wrong when it

categorized the mudroom — where she was standing when she

banged on the inner door — as part of the dwelling.

¶ 10 In People v. Jiminez, 651 P.2d 395, 396 (Colo. 1982), the

Colorado Supreme Court ruled that, for the purposes of second

degree burglary, a garage that was attached to a residence was

considered a part of the dwelling. The court explained that the

statutory definition of a “dwelling” does not “exclude . . . those parts

of a residence that are not ‘usually used by a person for habitation.’

Moreover, at least some of the usual uses of a residential garage,

including storage of household items, are incidental to and part of

the habitation uses of the residence itself.” Id. A division of this

court later held that “the Jiminez rationale is equally applicable to

first degree criminal trespass.” People v. Hanna, 981 P.2d 627, 629

(Colo. App. 1998).

4 ¶ 11 Evidence at trial established that when Wilds opened the outer

door to get to Lopez’s main door inside, she entered into the

enclosed mudroom. The mudroom was an enclosed attachment to

Lopez’s home, with an overhang on it. The mudroom was used for

storage, and it contained jackets, water, and other items that Lopez

and his family used for their home. Therefore, the mudroom was

part of the dwelling because it was part of a structure that was

designed for shelter and it was used to store household items. See

Jiminez, 651 P.2d at 396 (“[S]torage of household items[ is]

incidental to and part of the habitation uses of the residence

itself.”). We therefore conclude that the mudroom was part of

Lopez’s dwelling.

¶ 12 Next, Wilds argues that the prosecution did not present

sufficient evidence to prove that she “knowingly” entered Lopez’s

dwelling. She argues that her mental state did not show that she

knew she was violating the criminal code. As Wilds testified at trial,

she “thought [she] was just entering a porch to knock on the door of

the residence. It never . . . occurred to [her] that what [she] was

doing could be construed as a crime.”

5 ¶ 13 Section 18-1-501(6), C.R.S. 2025, states that “[a] person acts

‘knowingly’ or ‘willfully’ with respect to conduct or to a

circumstance described by a statute defining an offense when [s]he

is aware that [her] conduct is of such nature or that such

circumstance exists.” But “[g]enerally speaking, where the law

imposes criminal liability for certain conduct, the [knowingly]

element requires ‘no more than that the person charged with the

duty knows what [s]he is doing. It does not mean that, in addition,

[s]he must suppose that [s]he is breaking the law.” People v.

Holmes, 959 P.2d 406, 414 (Colo. 1998) (quoting United States v.

Dashney, 937 F.2d 532, 538 (10th Cir. 1991)).

¶ 14 At trial, Wilds admitted to opening the outer door and

“banging” on the inner door of Lopez’s home during her 911 call. A

recording of that call was admitted into evidence during trial. And

the prosecutor asked Wilds, “And you had never before been given

permission to enter . . . [the mudroom], correct?” Wilds responded

“No.”

¶ 15 This evidence was sufficient for a reasonable mind to conclude

that Wilds was aware of what she was doing when she opened the

outer door, entered the mudroom, and knocked on the inner door

6 without permission. She did not also need to know that her actions

constituted first degree criminal trespass for this evidence to be

sufficient to show that her actions were knowing.

¶ 16 Finally, Wilds argues that Lopez was the “only” eyewitness to

testify, and he was not credible because his testimony was

inconsistent with his previous statements. Wilds also notes that

Lopez refused to provide police with a written statement on the

morning of the incident.

¶ 17 Yet the trial court heard Lopez’s inconsistent statements about

whether the front door was locked and whether the window next to

the outer door was functioning. It also heard that Lopez did not

provide a written statement to police on the date of the incident.

However, “contradictory and incomplete testimony is not

uncommon.” Hanna, 981 P.2d at 629. And “[t]he determination of

credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given conflicting items

of evidence rests with the fact-finder.” Id. It was for the trial court,

as the fact finder in this case, to determine Lopez’s credibility. As

an appellate court, it is not our role to reweigh the evidence or judge

the credibility of witnesses. See People v. Rivas, 77 P.3d 882, 891

(Colo. App. 2003).

7 B. Right to Present a Defense

¶ 18 Wilds contends that the court violated her constitutional right

to present a defense when it erroneously ruled that certain evidence

would be inadmissible at trial.

¶ 19 Evidence must be relevant to be admissible. People v. Rath, 44

P.3d 1033, 1038 (Colo. 2002). Evidence is relevant if it has “any

tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to

the determination of the action more probable or less probable than

it would be without the evidence.” CRE 401. While relevant,

evidence may be inadmissible if “its probative value is substantially

outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the

issues, or misleading the jury.” CRE 403.

¶ 20 “We review evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion. A

district court abuses its discretion when its ruling is manifestly

arbitrary, unreasonable, or unfair or when it is based on an

incorrect understanding of the law.” People v. Schlehuber, 2025

COA 50, ¶ 42 (citation omitted).

¶ 21 It is not the case that “every restriction on a defendant’s

attempts to challenge the credibility of evidence against [her], or

8 even every erroneous evidentiary ruling having that effect, amounts

to a federal constitutional error.” Krutsinger v. People, 219 P.3d

1054, 1062 (Colo. 2009). To the contrary, “a defendant may

successfully assert a constitutional violation only where ‘the trial

court’s ruling . . . barred the defendant from meaningfully testing

evidence central to establishing [her] guilt.’” People v. Gonzalez-

Quezada, 2023 COA 124M, ¶ 21 (quoting People v. Dominguez-

Castor, 2020 COA 1, ¶ 70).

2. The Court Did Not Erroneously Exclude Evidence or Violate Wilds’s Constitutional Rights

¶ 22 During a pretrial hearing, Wilds asked to present evidence that

the Boulder County Sheriff’s Department “had a vendetta against

her for repeated complaints about racism[,] [an attempted murder

in 2020,] and [a cocaine cartel’s] drug dealing in her neighborhood.”

Wilds claimed that, because of this vendetta, the sheriff’s

department tried to find things to arrest her for and question

neighbors “long enough to get something that they could arrest

[her] for.” The court clarified at the hearing that her proposed

defense was that the sheriff’s department influenced Lopez’s

statement because of the department’s previous issues with Wilds

9 and this alleged vendetta. Besides her own testimony, Wilds

wanted to call one of her doctors and representatives from a

provider where she had previously received treatment.

¶ 23 The court ultimately issued a detailed order under CRE 401

and CRE 403 about what areas of testimony Wilds could elicit. It

determined that while Wilds could testify that she believed that this

vendetta existed, she could not testify as to why she believed it

existed. The court noted that she could not “call witnesses to talk

about the entire backstory of . . . the cartel that took control of the

trailer park.” However, the court allowed her to

• question Lopez about whether he was influenced or

pressured in any way by the sheriff’s department “to

report things in the way that he reported them”;

• question Lopez about Wilds’s belief that his statements

changed from his original law enforcement contact to his

later trial statements;

• question the sheriff’s deputies about whether they

pressured Lopez to include certain details or change his

story in any way;

10 • testify that the sheriff’s department put a certain version

of events in Lopez’s head because Wilds believed that

they have a vendetta against her; and

• testify that the sheriff’s department told Wilds that they

would start making false arrests or be aggressive with her

during arrests.

¶ 24 The trial court did not abuse its discretion by setting these

limits on the evidence Wilds could present. Given the parameters

described above, it is clear the court’s primary concern was

preventing the introduction of evidence that would violate Rule 403,

and it implemented guardrails to do so. It is true that evidence

about whether sheriff’s deputies influenced witnesses in the case

was relevant to Wilds’s defense. And the court permitted that

evidence. It only barred the details of an alleged attempted murder

that took place two years earlier and an apparent cocaine “cartel

that took control of the trailer park.” We perceive no abuse of

discretion in the trial court’s ruling that these earlier events were

irrelevant to the issues in the trial and would be unduly prejudicial.

¶ 25 Further, we conclude that the court’s limitations did not

violate Wilds’s right to present a complete defense and test the

11 evidence against her. She was permitted to testify that the sheriff’s

office had a vendetta against her and to question Lopez and sheriff’s

deputies about their biases and any pressure exerted to make

certain statements. Notably, Wilds did not ultimately question

Lopez about any pressure from deputies to change his story, and

she only briefly questioned a sheriff’s deputy about bias. The court,

therefore, did not completely bar Wilds from “meaningfully testing

evidence central to establishing [her] guilt.” Gonzalez-Quezada,

¶ 21 (quoting Dominguez-Castor, ¶ 70).

C. Cumulative Error

¶ 26 Finally, Wilds contends that the cumulative effect of the trial

court’s errors requires that her conviction be vacated or reversed.

¶ 27 The cumulative error doctrine applies when “the cumulative

effect of [multiple] errors and defects substantially affected the

fairness of the trial proceedings and the integrity of the fact-finding

process.” Howard-Walker v. People, 2019 CO 69, ¶ 24 (alteration in

original) (quoting People v. Lucero, 615 P.2d 660, 666 (Colo. 1980)).

Because we determine that the trial court did not err, the

cumulative error doctrine does not apply. We therefore reject

Wilds’s last contention.

12 III. Disposition

¶ 28 The judgment is affirmed.

JUDGE FOX and JUDGE SULLIVAN concur.