2017 COA 82
Colo. Ct. App.2017Background
- In Sept. 2014 an officer found juvenile L.C. in a public park after hours, learned he was subject to a 2013 protection order prohibiting possession/control of firearms or other weapons, and asked to search his backpack.
- The officer inspected a compartment L.C. avoided and found a knife with a 5.5-inch blade in a sheath; L.C. was arrested.
- A delinquency petition charged violation of the protection order, unlawfully carrying a concealed weapon (Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-12-105), and trespass; magistrate convicted L.C. of the first two offenses and acquitted on trespass.
- L.C. challenged the constitutionality of the concealed-weapon statute and the protection-order no-weapon provision, and argued insufficiency of evidence that the knife was carried "on or about" his person and that he violated the protection order.
- The district court denied review; on appeal the Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed—rejecting the vagueness challenge to the concealed-weapon statute, declining to reach preserved overbreadth claims, and finding sufficient evidence for both convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vagueness of concealed-weapon statute (§ 18-12-105) | Statute criminalizes concealed possession of any knife >3.5" regardless of weapon intent, so it fails to give fair notice and invites arbitrary enforcement | Statute requires the carrying be "unlawful" (e.g., violating a court order) and uses ordinary statutory terms; no facial vagueness | Statute is not unconstitutionally vague; "unlawfully" and statutory definition give sufficient notice |
| Overbreadth of concealed-weapon statute | Statute reaches innocent uses and impinges on Colorado right to bear arms | Argument not raised below; record undeveloped | Court declines to address unpreserved overbreadth; would find no plain error if reviewed |
| Sufficiency: "on or about his person" for concealed-weapon conviction | Knife in interior zippered compartment/sheath not "on" and not readily accessible, so insufficient evidence | "On or about" includes items reasonably close to person (backpack worn/carried); evidence showed concealment in backpack and L.C. avoided that compartment | Evidence sufficient—weapon in backpack counts as "on or about" person and was readily accessible |
| Violation of protection order (no-weapon provision) | Possession of knife not directed at protected person A.H.; statute requires conduct intended to cause imminent danger to protected person | The order’s no-weapon provision is an independent condition intended to protect A.H.; violating that term is a violation regardless of a specific threatening act toward A.H. | Sufficient evidence: order prohibited possession of weapons to protect A.H., and L.C. possessed a weapon; conviction stands; constitutional challenge to order unpreserved and not reached |
Key Cases Cited
- Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (1983) (due-process vagueness test: fair notice and prevention of arbitrary enforcement)
- People v. Gross, 830 P.2d 933 (Colo. 1992) (vagueness principles and statutory interpretation of weapons statutes)
- A.P.E. v. People, 20 P.3d 1179 (Colo. 2001) (specific-intent discussion for short-blade knives excluded by statute)
- Hinojos-Mendoza v. People, 169 P.3d 662 (Colo. 2007) (de novo review of statutory constitutionality; judicial economy considerations)
- In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970) (due process requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every element)
- People v. Wade, 369 P.3d 546 (Cal. 2016) (firearm in backpack can be "on" the person for concealed-carry statutes)