Peo v. Wilds

── Peo v. Wilds ── Court: Colorado Court of Appeals Date: April 16, 2026 Category: General 24CA1280 Peo v Wilds 04-16-2026 COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS Court of Appeals No. 24CA1280 Boulder County District Court No. 22CR445 Honorable Thomas F. Mulvahill, Judge Honorable Nancy W. Salomone, Judge The People of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Christoper Wilds, Defendant-Appellant. JUDGMENT AFFIRMED Division II Opinion by JUDGE KUHN Fox and Sullivan, JJ., concur NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e) Announced April 16, 2026 Philip J. Weiser, Attorney General, Josiah Beamish, Assistant Attorney General, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellee Carrie Skahan, Alternate Defense Counsel, Colorado Springs, Colorado, for Defendant-Appellant ¶1 Defendant, John Christoper Wilds, was convicted of first degree criminal trespass. She now appeals this conviction.1 We affirm. I. Background ¶2 In February 2022, Jose Lopez, the victim, woke up around 3 a.m. to get ready for work. He turned on his car and went back into his home for a few minutes to finish getting ready. Wilds, who claimed that vehicle exhaust triggered her seizures, walked over to Lopez’s home. Wilds “opened the outer door and went into the inner door and banged as loud as [she] could on the inner door.” Wilds was standing on an enclosed porch or mudroom as she banged on the inner door. Both Wilds and Lopez called 911 to report the incident, and deputies soon arrived to question the parties involved. ¶3 Wilds was charged with first degree criminal trespass, and she was convicted after a bench trial. § 18-4-502(1)(a), C.R.S. 2025. 1 Wilds’s pronouns are she/her. 1  II. Analysis ¶4 Wilds contends that (1) there was insufficient evidence to convict her of first degree criminal trespass; (2) the court violated her constitutional right to present a defense when it wrongfully excluded evidence at trial; and (3) the cumulative effect of these errors requires that her conviction be vacated or reversed. We are not persuaded. A. Sufficiency of the Evidence ¶5 Wilds argues that there was insufficient evidence to convict her of first degree criminal trespass because the prosecution did not prove that she knowingly entered Lopez’s home. She argues that she did not know that the mudroom was part of the dwelling or that she was trespassing by going through the outer door. Wilds also argues that Lopez was the “only” eyewitness at trial, and his testimony was contradictory to statements he had previously given. ¶6 The People respond that there was sufficient evidence to prove that Wilds committed first degree criminal trespass. They assert that the mudroom that Wilds entered to knock on the inner door was part of Lopez’s dwelling. And because Wilds did not have 2  permission to enter Lopez’s dwelling, she committed first degree criminal trespass. We agree with the People. 1. Applicable Law and Standard of Review ¶7 “A person commits the crime of first degree criminal trespass [when] such person . . . [k]nowingly and unlawfully enters or remains in a dwelling of another.” § 18-4-502(1)(a). A dwelling is a “building which is used, intended to be used, or usually used by a person for habitation.” § 18-1-901(3)(g), C.R.S. 2025. And a building is defined as “a structure which has the capacity to contain, and is designed for the shelter of, man, animals, or property.” § 18-4-101(1), C.R.S. 2025. ¶8 We apply the substantial evidence test to determine if the evidence was “sufficient both in quantity and quality to sustain the defendant’s conviction.” Clark v. People, 232 P.3d 1287, 1291 (Colo. 2010). In applying this test, we review th