Peo v. Morgan

── Peo v. Morgan ── Court: Colorado Court of Appeals Date: May 07, 2026 Category: General 22CA1447 Peo v Morgan 05-07-2026 COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS Court of Appeals No. 22CA1447 Arapahoe County District Court No. 20CR1052 Honorable Ryan J. Stuart, Judge The People of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Philip Morgan, Defendant-Appellant. JUDGMENT AFFIRMED Division III Opinion by JUDGE DUNN Harris and Moultrie, JJ., concur NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e) Announced May 7, 2026 Philip J. Weiser, Attorney General, Jaycey DeHoyos, Assistant Attorney General, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellee Megan A. Ring, Colorado State Public Defender, River B. Sedaka, Deputy State Public Defender, Denver, Colorado, for Defendant-Appellant ¶1 A jury found Philip Morgan guilty of two counts of sexual assault on a child as part of a pattern of abuse for abusing his daughter. On appeal, Morgan contends that the district court erred by (1) violating his constitutional right to a fair trial when it denied his motion for a mistrial; (2) admitting the victim’s prior consistent statements; and (3) allowing the prosecutor to commit misconduct in closing argument. He also argues that the errors cumulatively deprived him of a fair trial. We affirm. I. Background ¶2 When she was ten years old, the victim told her mother — Morgan’s ex-wife — that Morgan had been sexually assaulting her for about a year. She related that the abuse occurred when she visited Morgan at his home. That disclosure led to a police investigation, after which the prosecution charged Morgan with five counts of sexual assault on a child as part of a pattern of abuse. One count was not bound over for trial and one count was dismissed during trial, leaving three counts for the jury. ¶3 Morgan testified at trial. While he admitted that he verbally abused the victim and physically disciplined her, he denied any sexual abuse or inappropriate touching. Defense counsel argued 1  that the victim fabricated the sexual abuse to end the verbal and physical abuse. ¶4 The jury convicted Morgan of two counts of sexual assault and acquitted him on the remaining count. It also found a sentence enhancer for penetration of a victim under twelve years old. The court sentenced Morgan to fifty years to life in prison. II. Mistrial Motion ¶5 Morgan contends that the district court violated his right to a fair trial and abused its discretion when it denied his motion for a mistrial after the court teared up during the victim’s testimony. A. Additional Background ¶6 The victim was the first witness to testify at trial. During her testimony, the victim testified about Morgan’s sexual abuse. ¶7 During the morning recess and outside the jury’s presence, defense counsel made a record that he “noticed that the [c]ourt was tearing up” during the victim’s testimony and he “was concerned how that presents to the jury.” Arguing that the court’s emotional response to the victim’s testimony bolstered the victim’s credibility and jeopardized Morgan’s right to a fair trial, defense counsel asked for a mistrial. 2 ¶8 The prosecution objected to the mistrial, adding that it had not seen the court tear up, the jury was “a significant distance” from the court, the “angles are different,” and nothing suggested that the jury saw anything. ¶9 The court admitted that during one portion of the victim’s testimony it “felt tears welling up,” but “[n]o tears ever came out.” The court added that “the moment” it felt tears welling up, it grabbed a statute book and looked down to dissociate from the testimony. ¶ 10 After a short break, the court supplemented the