2012 COA 64
Colo. Ct. App.2012Background
- M.C., a juvenile, was adjudicated delinquent after a bench trial for willful destruction of wildlife under subsection (II) of section 33-6-117(1)(a), C.R.S.2011, alleging abandonment of a carcass taken by another.
- Three youths shot a pronghorn; T.P. killed the animal, while M.C. helped transport and conceal the carcass that night.
- The State charged under subsection (II) rather than the initial taker offense in subsection (I); the information indicated abandonment of wildlife or possession leading to abandonment.
- The trial court concluded subsections (I) and (II) describe independent, alternative ways to commit the offense, and rejected vagueness challenges to subsection (II).
- The trial court found M.C. possessed the carcass and assisted in concealing it, supporting adjudication under subsection (II).
- The court’s interpretation determined subsection (II) could apply to someone who acquires possession of wildlife taken by another and later abandons it, not just the initial taker.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are subsections (I) and (II) independent offenses? | People contends they describe independent, alternate means of the same crime. | M.C. argues (II) cannot apply without initial taking under (I). | Yes; subsections (I) and (II) are independent, alternate elements. |
| Is subsection (II) void for vagueness when applied to a bystander who abandons wildlife taken by another? | People asserts enough clarity exists to apply to third-party abandonment. | M.C. contends (II) is vague as to what possessory interest qualifies. | No, subsection (II) is not void for vagueness; it reasonably defines liability for abandonment by someone with possessory interest acquired after initial taking. |
| Did the record support adjudication under subsection (II) for M.C.? | Record shows M.C. possessed and aided in concealing the carcass. | Argues lack of initial taker requirement negates applicability to M.C. | Record supported adjudication under subsection (II). |
| Does passive voice in subsection (II) affect clarity of the actor and scope of liability? | Passive construction fills gaps and broadens liability to those who abandon after possession. | Concerns about ambiguity and overbreadth in liability for bystanders. | Passive voice appropriately expands liability while aligning with statutory purpose. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Gordon, 160 P.3d 284 (Colo.App.2007) (interprets independent offense structure under split statute)
- Armintrout v. People, 864 P.2d 576 (Colo.1993) (discusses use of 'or' to describe alternate ways of committing a crime)
- People v. Lawrence, 55 P.3d 155 (Colo.App.2001) (reiterates interpretation of disparate subsections under a statute)
- People v. Olson, 921 P.2d 51 (Colo.App.1996) (adequacy of record and sufficiency considerations on appeal)