Peo v. Scott

── Peo v. Scott ── Court: Colorado Court of Appeals Date: May 28, 2026 Category: General 24CA2015 Peo v Scott 05-28-2026 COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS Court of Appeals No. 24CA2015 Boulder County District Court No. 23CR1091 Honorable Dea M. Lindsey, Judge The People of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Shawn Scott, Defendant-Appellant. JUDGMENT AFFIRMED Division VI Opinion by JUDGE GOMEZ Grove and Moultrie, JJ., concur NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e) Announced May 28, 2026 Philip J. Weiser, Attorney General, Alexandra Taylor, Assistant Attorney General Fellow, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellee The Noble Law Firm, LLC, Antony Noble, Lakewood, Colorado, for Defendant- Appellant ¶1 Defendant, Michael Shawn Scott, appeals the judgment of conviction entered on a jury verdict finding him guilty of sexual assault on a child less than fifteen years old by one in a position of trust as a part of a pattern of abuse. He contends that the trial court erroneously denied his motion to admit evidence as relevant under Colorado’s rape shield statute, section 18-3-407, C.R.S. 2025. We disagree and, therefore, affirm. I. Background ¶2 In 2022, seventeen-year-old A.N. told her older sister, G.N., that she was starting to remember being inappropriately touched by Scott, a family friend, when she was a young child. According to A.N., physical intimacy with her new boyfriend had triggered these memories. G.N. told their parents, who spoke with A.N. about her disclosures. Later, A.N. and her parents had a general conversation with A.N.’s younger sister, E.N., about A.N.’s memories. E.N. then said she remembered having “uncomfortable” experiences with Scott as a young girl. The family later filed a report with the police. ¶3 A.N. and E.N. separately participated in forensic interviews, during which they recollected their experiences with Scott. 1 ¶4 During a follow-up interview with a detective, A.N. wrote the following statement: My boyfriend and I heard a term I have/had never heard before and I asked him what it meant. I knew about regular sex but didn’t know that there was a thing called “anal sex.” When I learned what this was I had a sick feeling and a memory of being in a shower in a lot of pain with the individual and later using the bathroom and wiping away blood and this was before my period ever started. It is fuzzy, I feel sick and wierd [sic] when I try to remember. A.N. told the detective that the individual was Scott, that he had penetrated her with his penis, and that the memory had occurred to her after she tried anal sex with her boyfriend. ¶5 The prosecution charged Scott with one count of sexual assault on a child less than fifteen years old (A.N.) by one in a position of trust as a part of a pattern of abuse, and one count of sexual assault on a child (E.N.) by one in a position of trust. ¶6 A month before trial, Scott filed a motion to admit, as relevant under the rape shield statute, A.N.’s statements to the detective that she recalled anal penetration by Scott after talking about and engaging in anal sex with her boyfriend. The trial court denied 2  Scott’s motion after a hearing. The court also denied Scott’s two renewals of his motion during trial. ¶7 At trial, A.N. testified, among other things, that at separate times Scott had put her hand on his erect penis and grabbed her vagina. She also testified that she had a “fuzzy” memory of being pressed up against the wall in the shower with Scott while both of them were naked, feeling pain in her anus from Scott’s penis, and later finding blood