2014 COA 158
Colo. Ct. App.2014Background
- Bruno occupied an unoccupied, privately owned Fraser, Colorado home in foreclosure and filed an Affidavit of Adverse Possession on October 6, 2011 claiming occupancy since July 22, 2011.
- Police ordered Bruno to remove his belongings and reinstall original locks; he refused.
- On November 4, 2011 Bruno recorded additional documents including a limited power of attorney and a lien for alleged maintenance/repairs.
- He was charged with theft, criminal trespass, and two counts of offering a false instrument for recording (based on the affidavit and power of attorney); jury convicted on all counts; sentenced to two years probation.
- Bruno sought to assert an adverse possession defense (and presented related statutory and power-of-attorney arguments) and proffered an expert on adverse possession; the trial court excluded the adverse possession defense, modified his proposed theory-of-defense instruction, and excluded the expert; Bruno appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether adverse possession is a defense to theft and offering a false instrument | State: No statutory or common-law basis for an attempted adverse-possession defense to those crimes | Bruno: His attempt to adversely possess (and filings) negated criminal intent; he relied on adverse-possession statute and power-of-attorney authority | Court: No — criminal statutes don’t recognize it; adverse-possession statute contemplates completed 18-year claims and requires good-faith ownership belief, so no defense to these crimes |
| Whether the court erred in modifying Bruno’s theory-of-defense jury instruction | State: Court’s instruction accurately framed lack-of-intent theory without argumentative statutory claims | Bruno: Wants instruction to reference adverse possession, statutes, and power of attorney to negate intent | Held: No reversible error — original tendered instruction was argumentative/repetitive; court offered a concise instruction that fairly conveyed the defense |
| Whether exclusion of expert testimony on adverse possession violated right to present a defense | State: Expert testimony would be irrelevant and confusing because adverse-possession defense was legally unavailable | Bruno: Atwater would explain statute, common law, and opine on ultimate issues to show lack of criminal intent | Held: No abuse of discretion — testimony was irrelevant given rejection of the adverse-possession defense and risked jury confusion |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Garcia, 113 P.3d 775 (Colo. 2005) (standard for presenting an affirmative defense requiring some credible evidence)
- Lybarger v. People, 807 P.2d 570 (Colo. 1991) (legislature defines defenses and bars to prosecution)
- Hunter v. Mansell, 240 P.3d 469 (Colo. App. 2010) (elements of adverse possession under Colorado law)
- Oram v. People, 255 P.3d 1032 (Colo. 2011) (interpretation of statutory defenses and criminal code precedence)
- People v. Lesslie, 24 P.3d 22 (Colo. App. 2000) (limits on mistake-of-law as a defense)
- People v. Harte, 131 P.3d 1180 (Colo. App. 2005) (requirements for a theory-of-defense instruction)
- People v. Renfro, 117 P.3d 48 (Colo. App. 2004) (trial court discretion on jury instructions)
- People v. Ramirez, 155 P.3d 371 (Colo. 2007) (standard for review of evidentiary rulings including expert testimony)