Background
The People charged Sanorio Townsend with second degree burglary, first degree criminal trespass, and misdemeanor child abuse after he entered the home of his ex-wife, Jacqueline Ramos, and pinched their eleven-year-old daughter’s shoulders to discipline her. Video showed Townsend entering through a wide-open door after another child who appeared to live there.
At the preliminary hearing, the prosecution’s sole witness, Officer Katherine Cox, testified that Ramos had said Townsend was not permitted in her home. But Cox did not know when Ramos conveyed that restriction to Townsend and could not say whether it occurred before the October 23, 2025 entry. The district court dismissed the burglary and trespass charges for lack of probable cause.
The Court’s Holding
The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed. For burglary and trespass, the prosecution had to present evidence supporting probable cause that Townsend knowingly entered unlawfully—that he actually knew he was not licensed, invited, or otherwise privileged to enter Ramos’s home.
The evidence did not establish that Ramos told Townsend before the incident that he could not enter her home. Even viewing the record favorably to the prosecution, the court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding insufficient evidence of Townsend’s actual knowledge. The People also did not preserve their alternative argument that Townsend lacked a possessory right to enter the home.
Key Takeaways
- The knowingly requirement applies to the unlawful-entry element of burglary and first degree criminal trespass.
- A statement that a defendant was not permitted in a home does not establish probable cause without evidence the defendant knew of that restriction at the relevant time.
- The appellate court declined to consider an argument the prosecution did not raise or develop at the preliminary hearing.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that a preliminary hearing requires evidence of each critical element, including a defendant’s subjective knowledge of unlawful entry. Evidence of a resident’s uncommunicated objection to entry is not enough.