Background
Jason Rios, the legal guardian of the victim, was charged with five counts of sexual assault on a child in January 2022 after the then-15-year-old victim reported that Rios had been assaulting her for approximately two years. Rios’s defense at trial was that the victim had fabricated her allegations. After the victim testified, the jury found Rios guilty on all charges. The district court merged two charges related to the same incident and sentenced Rios to 24 years to life in the custody of the Department of Corrections.
On appeal, Rios raised three contentions: (1) that the district court erred in excluding a TikTok video the victim had posted online, (2) that the prosecutor committed misconduct by making an improper “golden rule” argument during jury selection, and (3) that the cumulative impact of these errors required reversal.
The Court’s Holding
The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction on all grounds. Regarding the TikTok video, the court held that exclusion was proper. The video, which featured text reading “[heart emoji]: people always lie to me I hate it” and “[brain emoji]: you do the same you just don’t get caught,” was initially offered as a prior inconsistent statement or to impeach the victim’s credibility. Although defense counsel failed to preserve the prior inconsistent statement argument under Colorado Revised Statutes section 16-10-201, the court reviewed for plain error and found none. The victim had admitted to making the statements during cross-examination, and defense counsel used them extensively in closing argument. Since the video merely duplicated the impeachment already achieved through the victim’s own admissions and offered no additional probative value, its exclusion was not an abuse of discretion.
On the golden rule argument claim, the court held that the prosecutor’s jury selection questioning did not constitute prosecutorial misconduct. During voir dire, the prosecutor asked prospective jurors to imagine a sexual experience and consider how they would feel discussing it with strangers, then asked how a child or teenager would feel doing the same. The court distinguished this from a “true” golden rule argument, which invites jurors to imagine that a defendant has personally wronged them. The prosecutor’s questioning was a permissible method to assess whether prospective jurors harbored bias about discussing sensitive topics—bias that could affect their ability to fairly evaluate the victim’s credibility. The questioning did not ask jurors to place themselves in the victim’s shoes or imagine themselves being assaulted.
Because no error was identified, the cumulative error claim was rejected.
Key Takeaways
- A witness’s prior inconsistent statements may be excluded as cumulative evidence under the Colorado Rules of Evidence if the witness has admitted to making those statements during cross-examination, even if the statements’ foundation requirements are satisfied.
- Golden rule arguments—inviting jurors to imagine that a defendant personally wronged them—are improper in criminal cases outside the capital sentencing context; however, prosecution questions assessing prospective jurors’ bias or discomfort regarding testimony on sensitive topics do not constitute golden rule arguments if they do not ask jurors to imagine themselves as the victim.
- Prosecutors have latitude during jury selection to conduct questioning that explores prospective jurors’ attitudes toward discussing difficult subject matter, provided such questioning serves a legitimate bias-assessment function rather than an appeal to sympathy.
Why It Matters
This decision provides important guidance on the limits of witness impeachment and prosecutorial conduct during jury selection in sexual assault cases. It clarifies that courts may exclude evidence—even prior inconsistent statements—when that evidence is merely duplicative of admissions already elicited from the witness, and that jury selection questions exploring attitudes about sensitive topics are permissible as long as they do not cross into golden rule territory by asking jurors to imaginatively place themselves as victims. For prosecutors, it confirms that thoughtful voir dire exploring juror bias is constitutional and ethical; for defendants, it confirms that appellate review of evidence exclusions in the absence of preserved trial objections is limited to plain error review, a demanding standard.
The decision also illustrates how appellate courts balance competing interests in sexual assault trials: protecting defendants’ due process rights against golden rule arguments and prejudicial evidence, while ensuring that juries can fairly assess victim credibility and that prosecutors can adequately screen for juror bias. The ruling underscores that the manner and context of questioning matter more than the general topic, and that prosecutors may explore difficult subjects during voir dire without crossing the line into impermissible sympathy appeals.