2013 COA 27
Colo. Ct. App.2013Background
- Chase resided at Wapiti Meadows, a Grand County, Colorado, housing complex, where he met victims G.B., D.D., and M.G. who held management/maintenance roles; he regularly complained about neighbors and alleged ethnic bias and noise by the B. family.
- Chase was evicted in October 2008 after management obtained a restraining order related to arson allegations and a separate incident where he banged on the B. family’s wall and yelled ethnically charged threats.
- On October 2, 2008, Chase emailed G.B. seeking legal advice about the eviction; G.B. informed him she could not assist.
- Between October 6 and 7, 2008, Chase sent six emails to the victims from Boston, including explicit threats and demeaning language, with content directed at the eviction and specific victims.
- The victims opened and read the emails while in Baltimore, Maryland, and returned to Colorado shortly thereafter; M.G. and D.D. were in Baltimore when reading; they feared for safety and notified authorities.
- Chase was charged with three felony counts of stalking (18-9-111(4)(b)(II)) and three misdemeanor counts of harassment by computer, with the trial court giving a lesser-included offense instruction for harassment by computer; the jury convicted on all counts and the court imposed consecutive four-year sentences for each felony, totaling twelve years.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction over counts related to M.G. and D.D. | Chase—no Colorado occurrence; victims outside state. | State lacked jurisdiction; conduct occurred outside Colorado. | Colorado had jurisdiction; threats caused fear in Colorado, enough to satisfy 18-1-201. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for credible threat and repeated communications | Emails contained threats; reasonably caused fear; multiple communications. | Insufficient to prove threat or repetition. | Evidence supported credible threat and repeated communications, sustaining the felony stalking verdict. |
| Trial court's response to jury question on elements | Court should further instruct that offenses occur in Colorado. | Instruction already stated burden and locality; no need for extra guidance. | No reversible error; court properly reiterated proper standard and local element. |
| First Amendment and Equal Protection challenges | Statute as-applied violates no First Amendment rights; no equal protection violation. | Emails were protected speech; statute overbroad/unconstitutional as applied. | Emails constituted true threats; no First Amendment violation; equal protection challenge rejected. |
| Mens rea instruction (knowingly) | Statutory language supports mens rea applying to all elements. | Possible error in how mens rea applied to elements. | No plain error; instruction correctly tracked statute and applied to elements. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Baer, 973 P.2d 1225 (Colo.1999) (jurisdiction and credible threat analysis; similar context to Colorado stalking)
- People v. Jacobs, 91 P.3d 438 (Colo.App.2003) (jurisdiction when threats target victims in-state though communications abroad)
- People v. Martinez, 37 Colo.App. 71, 543 P.2d 1290 (Colo.App.1975) (expands Colorado jurisdiction over offenses originating outside state)
- Bass, 155 P.3d 547 (Colo.App.2006) (review of jury questions; not an abuse of discretion to refer to instructions)
- Mascarenas, 972 P.2d 717 (Colo.App.1998) (court must not express opinion on factual determinations when answering jury questions)