Gustavo Lopez v. The People of the State of Colorado.

── Gustavo Lopez v. The People of the State of Colorado. ── Court: Supreme Court of Colorado Date: April 13, 2026 Category: General 1 2026 CO 23 Gustavo Lopez, Petitioner v. The People of the State of Colorado. Respondent No. 24SC244 Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc April 13, 2026           Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals Court of Appeals Case No. 19CA2313 2           Attorneys for Petitioner: Megan A. Ring, Public Defender Meghan M. Morris, Deputy Public Defender Denver, Colorado           Attorneys for Respondent: Philip J. Weiser, Attorney General Frank R. Lawson, Senior Assistant Attorney General Denver, Colorado 3           JUSTICE SAMOUR delivered the Opinion of the Court, in which JUSTICE HOOD, JUSTICE GABRIEL, and JUSTICE BERKENKOTTER joined. CHIEF JUSTICE MARQUEZ, joined by JUSTICE BOATRIGHT and JUSTICE BLANCO, dissented. 4           OPINION           SAMOUR, JUSTICE 5          ¶1 "[O]ne who induces a trial court to let down the bars to a field of inquiry that is not competent or relevant to the issues cannot complain if his adversary is also allowed to avail himself of the opening." 1 Kenneth S. Broun et al., McCormick on Evidence § 57, Westlaw (Robert P. Mosteller ed., 9th ed. database updated Feb. 2025) (quoting Warren Live Stock Co. v. Farr, 142 F. 116, 117 (8th Cir. 1905)). The majority of courts seem to heed this general principle of "fighting fire with fire," though it is known by different monikers. See id.; see also Bearint ex rel. Bearint v. Dorel Juv. Grp., Inc., 389 F.3d 1339, 1349 (11th Cir. 2004) ("This Circuit recognizes the concept of 'curative admissibility'-also called 'opening the door' or 'fighting fire with fire.'"). In Colorado, the principle travels under the banner of "opening the door." See, e.g., People v. Melillo, 25 P.3d 769, 775 (Colo. 2001).          ¶2 Courts across the country beat to different drums in their application of the door-opening principle. 1 Broun et. al, supra, § 57. In Hemphill v. New York, 595 U.S. 140, 152 (2022), for example, the Supreme Court observed that New York's version of the principle requires state courts "to determine whether one party's evidence and arguments, in the context of the full record, have created a 'misleading impression' that requires correction with additional material from the other side." Colorado largely speaks the same language as New York when it comes to the opening the door doctrine. See People v. Murphy, 919 P.2d 191, 195 (Colo. 1996). 6 We have explained that a party may open the door to otherwise inadmissible evidence by selectively presenting "facts that, without being elaborated or placed in context, create an incorrect or misleading impression."[1]Golob v. People, 180 P.3d 1006, 1012 (Colo. 2008) (citing Murphy, 919 P.2d at 195). The doctrine aims to prevent a party "from gaining and maintaining an unfair advantage" at trial. Id.; see also People v. Miller, 890 P.2d 84, 98-99 (Colo. 1995) (same).          ¶3 In this sexual assault on a child case, the People presented the testimony of Kim Grimm, who conducted the forensic interviews with the child victims, N.L. and A.L. After Grimm described her interviews with N.L. and A.L. and offered generalized expert opinions on conducting forensic interviews with children in criminal cases-including the signs of coaching she is trained to look for-a juror submitted a question for her. The juror inquired whether the child victims' 7 behaviors during Grimm's interviews were consistent with the behaviors of children she'd observed in cases where she'd discerned that coaching had occurred. Defense counsel objected, arguing that the question called for Grimm to offer an expert opinion on the credibility of the children. But the trial court overruled the objection and allowed the question. Grimm then testified that she didn't "feel like [she] saw huge red flags with that or anything that indicated that." Elaborating, she stated that each child was able to prov