## Facts

- A jury convicted James Henry Hunter of second-degree burglary, sexual assault, sexual assault on a child, and a crime of violence.
- The evidence showed Hunter broke into a neighbor’s home and sexually assaulted the adult victim and her five-year-old daughter.
- During the assaults, Hunter wore a mask and otherwise concealed his identity so the victims could not identify him at the time of the offense.
- The trial court designated Hunter a sexually violent predator (SVP) under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-3-414.5(1)(a).
- After an earlier appeal required specific findings on the statute’s “relationship” criterion, the trial court again designated Hunter an SVP, finding the victims were “strangers” because neither knew Hunter during the assault.
- The court of appeals reversed, reasoning “stranger” could not be determined solely by the victims’ inability to identify the offender at the moment of the assault and instead required assessment of the relationship “as a whole.”

## Issues

1. How should “stranger” in the SVP statute’s relationship criterion, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-3-414.5(1)(a)(III), be defined?
2. Did the court of appeals err by reversing the trial court’s SVP designation based on a “relationship as a whole” approach?

## Decision

- The Colorado Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and reinstated the trial court’s SVP designation.
- The court held that, for § 18-3-414.5(1)(a)(III), a victim is a “stranger” if either the victim is not known by the offender or the offender is not known by the victim at the time of the offense.
- Applying that definition, the court concluded the “stranger” criterion was satisfied because Hunter concealed his identity and the victims did not know him during the assault.

## Legal Principles

- Statutory interpretation begins with the statute’s plain language to effect legislative intent.
- Under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-3-414.5(1)(a)(III), “stranger” means either (a) the victim is not known by the offender, or (b) the offender is not known by the victim, measured at the time of the offense.
- The “stranger” inquiry is not an all-relationship assessment; it is tied to knowledge at the time of the offense and may be satisfied even if there was limited pre-offense contact.

## Conclusion

The Colorado Supreme Court held that the SVP statute’s “stranger” relationship criterion turns on whether either party was not known to the other at the time of the offense, and it reinstated Hunter’s SVP designation because the victims could not identify him during the masked assault.


People v. Hunter, 307 P.3d 1083 (Colo. 2013)