Schylar Colfax was convicted in the Western District of Washington for abusive sexual contact with a minor, a violation of 18 U.S.C. sections 2244(b) and 1153(a). The case involved allegations that Colfax touched a minor in her bedroom with the intent to arouse and gratify his sexual desire. Following his conviction, Colfax appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, the denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment based on an alleged illegal arrest, the denial of a motion to suppress a statement he made to police, and the admission of evidence regarding a prior similar incident and the victim's immediate statements to her grandmother.
The panel addressed four primary issues. First, regarding the sufficiency of the evidence, the court applied de novo review, asking whether any rational trier of fact could find the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt when viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution. The court found the evidence sufficient, noting testimony that Colfax entered the victim's bedroom while she was sick, touched her buttocks behind a closed door, continued after she told him to stop, lied about her whereabouts, and fled the scene. The court emphasized that it cannot usurp the jury's role in resolving credibility conflicts. Second, the court addressed the motion to dismiss the indictment and suppress a statement. Even assuming the arrest was illegal, the court cited United States v. Crews to state that an illegal arrest is not a bar to prosecution. To warrant dismissal, the government's conduct must be so outrageous that it violates fundamental fairness, a high threshold Colfax failed to meet. Furthermore, any error in admitting Colfax's statement, 'Those are just allegations,' was harmless given the overwhelming other evidence. Third, the court reviewed the admission of evidence regarding a prior touching incident one week earlier. Under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), this evidence was admissible for the non-propensity purpose of proving intent and knowledge. The court found the prior act was similar, not too remote in time, and supported by sufficient evidence. The district court's limiting instruction ensured the jury considered it only for intent, not character. Fourth, the court upheld the admission of the victim's statement to her grandmother as an excited utterance under Rule 803(2). The court found the touching was a startling event, the statement was made immediately while the victim was still under the stress of the event, and it related directly to the event.
The judgment of conviction is affirmed, and Colfax remains subject to his criminal sentence. The decision clarifies that an illegal arrest, without more, does not require dismissal of an indictment, and it reinforces the admissibility of prior similar acts and excited utterances in sexual offense cases when specific procedural safeguards and limiting instructions are applied.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download