Background
An Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) task force posted an advertisement on Locanto classified website titled “Teach my stepdaughter a lesson” in May 2022. In February 2023, Aaron Drake Thompson responded to the post. Detective Jason Darbyshire of the El Paso County Sheriff’s Office, acting undercover, replied that the child was fourteen years old and coordination ensued. Over text messages, Thompson inquired about condoms and penetration, requested a photograph of the alleged child, and asked Detective Darbyshire to send an email about a “sub contract job” to use as cover if his wife asked questions. Thompson also confirmed he kept two condoms in his wallet. When Thompson arrived at the address provided by law enforcement, he was arrested.
Thompson’s defense at trial was that he feared a child was in danger when he saw the post and was attempting to gather information to help her, motivated by his own daughter’s prior sexual assault. A jury convicted him of conspiracy to commit sexual assault on a child (victim under fifteen) and criminal attempt to commit sexual assault on a child. Thompson appealed, contending the district court erred by admitting allegedly false testimony, improperly limiting his cross-examination of Detective Darbyshire, and admitting a prejudicial evidence envelope label.
The Court’s Holding
The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed Thompson’s conviction on all counts. The court rejected Thompson’s claim that Detective Darbyshire committed perjury or presented false testimony. Thompson argued the prosecutor elicited misleading testimony when the detective agreed that the draft text message Thompson wrote (which was visible only in part on a screenshot) could “potentially” end where it was no longer viewable. The court found that Darbyshire had previously testified he was unable to view any continuation of the message, so the jury would have understood the detective was speaking hypothetically. Thompson failed to establish the three elements required for a perjury claim: that perjured testimony was presented, that the prosecution knew or should have known of it, and that it was material.
On the cross-examination issue, the court held that limiting Thompson’s question about how long law enforcement possessed his phone did not violate his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation. Although cross-examination regarding investigative adequacy is proper credibility-testing, the court found that Thompson was still able to argue during closing that the investigation was inadequate based on admitted evidence. The trial court properly excluded the additional question under Colorado Rule of Evidence 403 because the digital forensics extraction was performed by a Department of Homeland Security analyst who was not called as a witness and could not lay proper foundation, making further questioning likely to create a misleading impression of investigative failure that the prosecution could not rebut.
Finally, the court held that the evidence envelope bearing the label “Offense: Sexual Assault on a Child” was properly admitted. The label had probative value in establishing a complete chain of custody for the two condoms found in Thompson’s wallet. The jury would have understood from the verdict forms and jury instructions—which specified only the charges of conspiracy and criminal attempt—that Thompson was not actually charged with a completed sexual assault on a child.
Key Takeaways
- Undercover ICAC operations meeting adult responses to online solicitations constitute permissible investigative techniques; a defendant’s claimed intent to help a child cannot override the reality of his responses to explicit offers and coordination toward a sexual encounter.
- Incomplete or partial evidence presented at trial does not constitute perjury when the witness has already testified about the limitations of available information; the prosecution need not have elicited the testimony for the defendant to fail to prove all elements of a perjury claim.
- Trial courts may restrict cross-examination that, while touching on credibility, would create misleading impressions that prosecution cannot adequately address, particularly when the excluded testimony requires foundation from a witness who was not called.
- Evidence labels identifying the nature of charged offenses may be admitted when they serve chain-of-custody purposes and jury instructions clarify the actual charges brought.
Why It Matters
This decision upholds law enforcement’s ability to conduct online sting operations targeting adults who respond to advertisements soliciting child sexual abuse, even when the operation involves portraying a minor of a specific age. The ruling protects prosecutions that rely on undercover coordination and removes a potential avenue of appeal based on claims that partial evidence presentation constitutes perjury. For defendants, the decision narrows the scope of permissible cross-examination by allowing trial courts to balance defense credibility-testing against the risk that juries will draw unfounded inferences about investigative failures.
The case also clarifies that procedural objections not raised with specificity at trial—such as due process claims framed only as prosecutorial misconduct arguments—are reviewed only for plain error on appeal, a more stringent standard. This has practical implications for defense strategy: attorneys must clearly identify and object to constitutional violations during trial to preserve full appellate review.