PUEBLO, Colo. — A defense attorney challenged a child pandering charge during a preliminary hearing Friday in Pueblo Combined Court, arguing that prosecutors had failed to establish that the accused knowingly solicited a minor for sexual activity or made a sufficiently specific offer to support the charge.
The accused faces two counts, including pandering of a child, stemming from a May 29, 2026, incident involving a young man who reported that the accused offered him money during a conversation outside his home.
According to testimony, police responded after receiving a report from the young man’s mother. The young man had been riding his skateboard past the accused’s residence, located across the street from his own home, when he observed the accused sitting on a mobility scooter on an elevated front porch.
The accused reportedly called out to the young man and initiated a conversation. The young man subsequently entered the property, where the two initially discussed the weather and other general topics.
The conversation eventually turned to employment when the accused offered to pay the young man for performing yard work in the future. The young man expressed some interest but was uncertain about accepting the offer.
According to the responding officer’s testimony, the young man reported that the accused subsequently offered him $50 for his body. After the young man declined, the accused allegedly increased the offer to $100.
During questioning by the deputy district attorney, the officer was asked, “What did he mean ‘for his body’?”
The officer responded, “Not specifically, he stated he believed it was sexual in nature though.”
The officer also testified about his subsequent conversation with the accused, who reportedly acknowledged making an offer to the young man.
The officer stated that the accused was “very upfront and stated he understood why I was there.”
“He stated that he had offered money to a male party to mess around, was his words,” the officer testified.
“During that conversation, I asked him if he was aware of that male’s age, and he stated that he was because they had had that conversation,” the officer continued.
According to the officer, the accused said the young man had told him he was 19 years old.
The officer subsequently spoke with the young man to verify the conversation.
“Once I left the conversation with [the accused], I turned to [the victim], spoke to him at his residence, and just verified if that conversation had happened. He confirmed it had and stated that he was 17 years old during the conversation,” the officer testified.
During cross-examination, the deputy public defender questioned whether the officer had established that the accused’s statements constituted an offer of money in exchange for sexual activity.
The defense attorney argued that the conversation involved two separate subjects: an offer of paid yard work and a subsequent suggestion that the two “mess around.”
The deputy public defender stated that the accused “initially tells the officer that he asked [the victim] if he has a job, if he wants a job doing yardwork. Then he states that he asks [the victim] if he wants to mess around. Two separate things.”
“One, he offers to pay him to do yard work. And secondly, he asks if he wants to mess around,” the defense attorney continued.
The defense also pointed to the accused’s statement that he believed the young man was 19 years old, questioning whether the prosecution had established the necessary knowledge of the young man’s age.
During cross-examination, the officer acknowledged that he had not asked the accused to clarify what he meant by “mess around.”
The officer also acknowledged that he had not specifically discussed that phrase with the young man during their subsequent conversation.
According to the officer, the young man was uncertain about the meaning of the accused’s offer and had hoped the proposed payment concerned yard work.
The officer testified that the young man “wasn’t entirely sure what the offer was” and described his account as “very vague,” adding that he was “just hoping it was just for money for the yard work but he wasn’t sure.”
The officer acknowledged that the statements made by both individuals were vague.
The officer further testified that no additional investigative follow-up occurred before an amended affidavit changed the charge from solicitation to pandering of a child.
In closing arguments, the deputy public defender maintained that prosecutors had failed to establish probable cause because the evidence did not demonstrate that the accused knew the young man’s actual age or made a sufficiently specific sexual proposition.
The accused “needed to know what the age of this person was in order to be liable for the charge,” the defense attorney argued.
“There has been no information that was not hearsay in this case about that item,” the attorney added.
The defense further argued that the young man’s uncertainty about the meaning of the accused’s statements undermined the prosecution’s allegation that a specific sexual offer had been made.
“He doesn’t know what exactly the request is for. He hopes that it was just for yard work,” the deputy public defender stated.
The defense maintained that the phrase “mess around,” without additional clarification or evidence establishing an offer of payment for sexual activity, was insufficient to support the pandering charge.
The deputy public defender asked the court not to find probable cause.
The judge did not immediately announce a ruling on probable cause, instead taking the matter under consideration and indicating that an order concerning the preliminary hearing would be issued later.
The court also continued the matter for further consideration of the accused’s bond.
In discussing bond, the judge expressed concern about the accused’s criminal history, citing a “very lengthy history that involves sex offense and charges that involve children.”
The court did not announce a final resolution of the preliminary hearing or bond issue during the proceeding.
To comment please go to one of these social media platforms:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/DavisVanguard
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/peoples-vanguard-of-davis-inc/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/davisvanguard/
X: https://x.com/davisvanguard
Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/vanguardnewsgroup.bsky.social
Subscribe to the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
