Jump To

Top Caption Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

Feb. 19, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Peo v. Mize

Colorado Court of Appeals

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 24CA0929

• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Opinion

• Authorities (5)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (7K)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

24CA0929 Peo v Mize 02-19-2026

COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS

Court of Appeals No. 24CA0929
Fremont County District Court No. 21CR311
Honorable Kaitlin B. Turner, Judge

The People of the State of Colorado,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

William Ray Mize,

Defendant-Appellant.

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED

Division III
Opinion by JUDGE MOULTRIE
Dunn and Harris, JJ., concur

NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e)
Announced February 19, 2026

Philip J. Weiser, Attorney General, Cata Cuneo, Assistant Attorney General,
Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Antony Noble, Alternate Defense Counsel, Bryan Collins, Alternate Defense
Counsel, Lakewood, Colorado, for Defendant-Appellant
¶1 Defendant, William Ray Mize, appeals the judgment of

conviction entered after a jury found him guilty of sexual assault –

ten-year age difference and force used; sexual assault – position of

trust and pattern; aggravated incest; contributing to the

delinquency of a minor; and stalking – causing emotional distress.

We affirm.

I. Background

¶2 In July 2021, Mize’s stepdaughter, the victim, informed police

that Mize had sexually assaulted her multiple times for about a year

and a half. After her disclosure, the victim was examined by a

Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE).

¶3 At Mize’s trial, the police officer who interviewed Mize testified

that Mize admitted to having sexual intercourse with the victim

multiple times. In addition, the prosecution admitted the video of

Mize’s police interview during which he acknowledged having sex

with the victim but maintained that the victim initiated the sexual

contact and forced him to have sex with her.

¶4 The prosecution also presented the testimony of the nurse who

conducted the victim’s SANE examination. Shortly after the nurse

began testifying, the prosecution asked the court to qualify her as

1
an expert. Mize’s defense counsel objected because the prosecution

had not endorsed her as an expert in its witness disclosures, which

the prosecution acknowledged. The court didn’t formally rule on

defense counsel’s objection before the prosecution resumed

questioning the nurse and asking her how SANE examinations are

usually performed. Defense counsel objected to the questioning,

again arguing that the nurse had not been properly endorsed as an

expert, and objected to any opinion testimony. However, defense

counsel didn’t object to the introduction of the nurse’s report, the

generalized data that she collected, or the findings in the report.

The court agreed that the nurse could not offer opinion testimony

because “that’s the important part of . . . endorsement as an

expert.”

¶5 Following a four-day trial, the jury found Mize guilty of the

offenses described above.

II. Discussion

¶6 Mize contends that reversible error occurred when the trial

court allowed the nurse who performed the victim’s examination to

provide testimony about how a SANE examination is conducted and

evidence is collected. He contends that the nurse’s testimony relied

2
too heavily on her training and experience, such that it amounted

to expert testimony when she wasn’t endorsed as an expert. We

perceive no reversible error.

A. Standard of Review

¶7 We review a trial court’s evidentiary decisions regarding expert

testimony for an abuse of discretion. Venalonzo v. People, 2017 CO

9, ¶ 15. If the alleged evidentiary error is preserved by a

contemporaneous objection, we review the error for harmless error,

and we reverse only if the error affected the substantial rights of the

parties. People v. Baker, 2021 CO 29, ¶ 38; Hagos v. People, 2012

CO 63, ¶ 12. An error is harmless if there is no reasonable

possibility that it contributed to the defendant’s conviction.

Pernell v. People, 2018 CO 13, ¶ 22. “Whether an error is harmless

depends on ‘the overall strength of the state’s case, the impact of

the improperly admitted . . . evidence on the trier of fact, whether

the proffered evidence was cumulative, and the presence of other

evidence corroborating or contradicting the point for which the

evidence was offered.’” People v. Vanderpauye, 2021 COA 121, ¶ 39

(citation omitted), aff’d, 2023 CO 42.

3
¶8 To the extent Mize asserts on appeal that constitutional

harmless error should be applied because the error affected his

right to due process, we reject that argument. See People v.

Martinez, 2020 COA 141, ¶¶ 26-27 (holding that the

nonconstitutional harmless error standard applies to evidentiary

rulings); see also People v. Flockhart, 2013 CO 42, ¶ 20 (Only those

errors “that specifically and directly offend a defendant’s

constitutional rights are ‘constitutional’ in nature.” (citation

omitted)).

B. Preservation

¶9 Initially, we note that the parties dispute whether Mize’s

objection at the beginning of the nurse’s testimony was sufficient to

preserve his current challenge to the parts of her testimony that

may have constituted expert testimony. However, we need not

conclusively decide whether Mize’s initial objection was sufficient to

preserve his appellate challenge because, even assuming it was and

the court erred by allowing that testimony, we conclude that any

error in admitting that testimony was harmless.

4
C. Analysis

¶ 10 The prosecution presented the following evidence to establish

Mize’s guilt as to the sexual assault and incest charges:

• The victim’s testimony that Mize forced her to have

intercourse with him multiple times over the course of

about a year and a half and threatened her if she told

anyone about it.

• The victim’s testimony that she had bruises on her arms

from a physical fight with Mize that occurred after she

believed he was going to sexually assault her again.

• The unobjected to SANE report which included

statements about the victim having bruises on her arms

and the collection of evidence, including a vaginal swab

from the victim.

• The investigating officer’s testimony that Mize admitted

having intercourse with the victim and that DNA evidence

from a vaginal swab taken during the victim’s SANE

examination contained evidence of male DNA.

• Mize’s police interview during which he repeatedly told

the investigating officer that he had sexual intercourse

5
with the victim but that the victim was the one who

forced him into it.

¶ 11 Thus, even assuming the nurse’s testimony about how she

conducted the exam and collected evidence for the police

constituted expert testimony that should have been excluded, there

is no reasonable possibility that it contributed to Mize’s conviction,

given the other admitted evidence of the sexual assault and incest

offenses. Moreover, Mize fails to explain how the nurse’s testimony

contributed to his convictions for contributing to the delinquency of

a minor and stalking. His assertion of reversible error is therefore

conclusory with respect to those charges, and we need not consider

it further. See People v. Sanders, 2023 CO 62, ¶ 16 (declining to

address undeveloped arguments).

¶ 12 Accordingly, we conclude that reversal is not required because

any prejudice from the nurse’s testimony was harmless. See

Pernell, ¶ 22; Vanderpauye, ¶ 39.

III. Disposition

¶ 13 The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

JUDGE DUNN and JUDGE HARRIS concur.

6