Montoya v. People
394 P.3d 676
Colo.2017Background
- Angelo Montoya and his cousin attended a keg party; after being told to leave a fight broke out, guns were pulled, and both men fired multiple rounds from the same 9mm handgun toward the house; one shot killed a woman.
- They were indicted for extreme indifference murder but acquitted of that charge; the jury convicted both of attempted extreme indifference murder, reckless manslaughter, criminally negligent homicide, and accessory to crime (the latter requested by defense as a lesser non-included offense).
- Montoya was sentenced to concurrent terms for the homicide offenses and a consecutive six-year term for accessory to crime; appeals followed and the court of appeals ultimately affirmed all convictions on remand after intervening precedent.
- Montoya sought certiorari to challenge (1) sufficiency of evidence for attempted extreme indifference murder (and related mens rea issue), (2) whether the prosecution had to disprove self‑defense beyond a reasonable doubt for that attempt charge, (3) sufficiency of evidence for accessory to crime (despite requesting that instruction), and (4) whether convictions for complicity and accessory to the same crime may stand together.
- The Supreme Court of Colorado affirmed: the evidence supported attempted extreme indifference murder; Montoya is estopped from contesting sufficiency for accessory to crime because he requested the instruction; and convictions for reckless manslaughter and accessory did not merge or require concurrent sentences.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Montoya) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for attempted extreme indifference murder | Evidence (multiple indiscriminate shots into crowd; shared gun) supports attempt liability and extreme indifference mens rea | "Knowingly" must apply to result; attempt requires strong corroboration of purpose to knowingly cause death, which evidence did not meet | Affirmed: evidence was sufficient — firing numerous rounds into a crowd supports knowledge that conduct created a grave risk of death and conduct strongly corroborative of purpose to commit the offense |
| Scope of "knowingly" and attempt mens rea | Knowledge suffices for attempt liability under Colorado law; attempt attaches to crimes requiring knowledge | "Knowingly" must be read to require awareness of practically certain death as to result; attempt insufficient otherwise | Affirmed: Colorado law (Krovarz line) permits attempt liability for offenses requiring knowledge; proof required was met by the record |
| Burden to disprove self‑defense for attempted extreme indifference murder | Prosecution need not carry an additional burden to disprove self‑defense where proving the elements of the crime necessarily negates self‑defense; statutory instruction limiting burden does not violate due process | Due process required prosecution to disprove self‑defense beyond reasonable doubt (Pickering and Smith implicated) | Affirmed: prosecution satisfied elements that traverse self‑defense; Pickering and Colorado statute properly treated self‑defense as element‑negating in this context and did not unconstitutionally shift burden |
| Challenge to accessory to crime conviction after defense requested that instruction | The People may prosecute and the jury may consider a lesser non‑included offense when defense requests it | Montoya argued evidence was insufficient despite having requested the accessory instruction | Affirmed: invited‑error/estoppel bars Montoya from challenging sufficiency on appeal for an offense he requested the court submit to the jury; accessory conviction stands |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Jefferson, 748 P.2d 1223 (Colo. 1988) (upheld amended extreme‑indifference murder statute and characterized it as "knowing, killing conduct" distinct by actus reus)
- People v. Marcy, 628 P.2d 69 (Colo. 1981) (construed extreme‑indifference language to require awareness that conduct is practically certain to cause death)
- Candelaria v. People, 148 P.3d 178 (Colo. 2006) (applied extreme‑indifference analysis to multiple‑shooter facts; evidence can show practical certainty and universal malice)
- People v. Pickering, 276 P.3d 553 (Colo. 2011) (interpreted 2003 amendment to self‑defense statute; prosecution need not carry an extra burden to disprove self‑defense when proof of the offense already negates it)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (federal standard for sufficiency of the evidence review)
- Smith v. United States, 568 U.S. 106 (U.S. 2013) (explained when burden allocation for affirmative defenses is constitutionally permissible)