## Facts

- Stanton Hoskay was admitted to a detoxification facility and assigned to the men’s dormitory.
- During a bed check, a detox counselor looked through a dormitory window from the hallway and saw Hoskay with his pants down on top of another man who appeared asleep and motionless.
- Based on what he observed, the counselor believed Hoskay was engaging in anal intercourse with the victim.
- When the counselor entered, Hoskay appeared startled; the victim remained motionless.
- The counselor escorted Hoskay to an office, returned to the dormitory, woke the victim, and asked if he knew what had happened; the victim said he did not.
- The victim testified he had been asleep, briefly woke to the counselor yelling, fell back asleep, and later learned what was alleged to have occurred; he also reported anal soreness for a couple of days.
- A jury convicted Hoskay of sexual assault of a physically helpless victim and public indecency.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying a challenge for cause to a prospective juror who expressed religious objections to homosexuality and uncertainty about the effect on her judgment.
2. Whether the court erred by admitting a counselor’s lay opinion that the encounter appeared nonconsensual under Colorado Rule of Evidence 701.
3. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove sexual assault of a physically helpless victim, including sexual intrusion/penetration, physical helplessness, and lack of consent.
4. Whether public indecency requires proof the defendant knew he was in a “public place,” requiring a corresponding jury instruction.

## Decision

- The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed both convictions.
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the challenge for cause because the juror gave repeated assurances she could decide the case on the evidence and apply the presumption of innocence.
- The counselor’s testimony that the encounter appeared nonconsensual was admissible lay opinion because it was based on his perceptions, helped the jury understand his observations, and did not rely on specialized knowledge.
- The evidence permitted a rational jury to find sexual intrusion or penetration, that the victim was physically helpless (asleep/unaware), and that Hoskay knew of that helplessness and lack of consent.
- The public indecency statute did not require the prosecution to prove Hoskay knew he was in a public place; the trial court properly declined to instruct the jury otherwise.

## Legal Principles

- A challenge for cause is properly denied when, despite initial expressions of potential bias, a prospective juror ultimately provides credible assurances of impartiality; appellate review is for abuse of discretion.
- Under Colorado Rule of Evidence 701, lay opinion testimony is admissible if it is rationally based on the witness’s perception, helpful to the jury, and not based on scientific, technical, or specialized knowledge.
- Evidence is sufficient if, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, it allows a rational jury to find each statutory element beyond a reasonable doubt, including the victim’s physical helplessness and the defendant’s awareness of it.
- Public indecency is strict liability as to the “public place” circumstance; absent express statutory language, no culpable mental state is implied for that location element.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Hoskay’s convictions, ruling that the juror’s assurances supported denial of a for-cause strike, the counselor’s nonconsent impression was proper lay opinion, the trial evidence supported sexual assault of a physically helpless victim, and public indecency required no proof that Hoskay knew the conduct occurred in a public place.


People v. Hoskay, 87 P.3d 194 (Colo. App. 2003)