Anthony Edwin Marsh v. the People of the State of Colorado — Gabriel, J., Concurring in Part and Dissenting in Part

Summary

Justice Gabriel agrees that any error in admitting the forensic interviewers’ testimony was harmless, but disagrees with the majority’s interpretation of the child-exploitation statute and its conclusion that the evidence established knowing possession or control of more than twenty images. He would construe the statute to require proof that the defendant reached out for and exercised dominion and control over the material, and would find sufficient evidence as to only eleven images. Justice Eid, concurring in part, would treat the statutory language as plain and agree that knowingly viewing online images constitutes possession or control; Justice Coats, concurring in part, would affirm on the harmless-error and remaining grounds.