2019 CO 34
Colo.2019Background
- Richard Anderson, after threatening patrons at a bar and producing a handgun, drove away; a deputy later stopped his vehicle and Anderson exited and fired at the deputy, discharging at least 13 rounds and wounding the officer.
- Surveillance showed other vehicles on the nearby highway seconds earlier; ballistics showed defendant's bullets could reach the highway and a fragment was recovered near the intersection.
- Anderson was convicted of attempted extreme indifference murder (among other charges); trial court sentenced him to 48 years for that conviction and 108 years total.
- On appeal the court of appeals vacated the attempted extreme indifference murder conviction, holding “universal malice” required endangering more than one person and there was no evidence others were endangered.
- The People sought certiorari; the Colorado Supreme Court granted review to decide whether the court of appeals erred in requiring proof that more than one person was endangered.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether "universal malice" (extreme indifference murder) requires endangering more than one person | People: statute does not limit the offense to conduct endangering multiple persons; conduct that objectively demonstrates a willingness to take life indiscriminately may suffice | Anderson: his shooting was directed at a single officer and did not endanger others, so extreme indifference element not met | Reversed: statute covers acts that may risk a single victim if the act evidences willingness to take life indiscriminately |
| Sufficiency of evidence for attempted extreme indifference murder | People: jury could find conduct (rapid, indiscriminate firing capable of reaching highway and other travelers; intent to be killed by return fire) met extreme indifference | Anderson: insufficient evidence that anyone other than the deputy was endangered; thus conviction should be vacated | Reversed: viewed in prosecution’s favor, evidence was sufficient for jury to find attempted extreme indifference murder |
| Applicability of attempt doctrine to extreme indifference murder | People: attempt liability does not require specific intent; knowledge or strong corroboration of purpose suffices | Anderson: (implicit) attempted extreme indifference requires same universal malice showing as completed offense | Held: attempt can apply to crimes requiring knowledge; here evidence corroborated defendant’s purpose to complete extreme indifference murder |
| Role of jury in grading homicide offenses | People: factual determination whether conduct demonstrates willingness to take life indiscriminately is for jury | Anderson: (implicit) court of appeals substituted legal limitation for jury factfinding | Held: affirmed preference to let jury decide whether conduct elevates homicide to extreme indifference murder |
Key Cases Cited
- Montoya v. People, 394 P.3d 676 (Colo. 2017) (reaffirmed attempt liability and elements of extreme indifference murder)
- Candelaria v. People, 148 P.3d 178 (Colo. 2006) (construed extreme indifference murder to include acts risking a single victim or multiple persons)
- Jefferson v. People, 748 P.2d 1223 (Colo. 1988) (upheld amended extreme indifference statute distinguishing it from second-degree murder)
- Marcy v. People, 628 P.2d 69 (Colo. 1981) (struck earlier statute version as problematic)
- Bennett v. People, 515 P.2d 466 (Colo. 1973) (standard for sufficiency of the evidence review)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (federal standard for appellate sufficiency review)