People v. Delgado
2016 COA 174
| Colo. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Victim was beaten unconscious on a sidewalk and personal items (wallet, keys, phone) were taken from his pockets. Police arrived and saw Delgado bent over the victim and then fleeing while discarding the items; Delgado was arrested.
- Only one taking was alleged and supported by the evidence; there was no evidence of multiple takings.
- Delgado was tried on robbery (taking by use of force) and theft from the person of another (taking by means other than force); the jury convicted on both counts.
- The trial court sentenced Delgado to 12 years for robbery and a concurrent 200 days for theft; the theft sentence was lesser.
- Delgado appealed, arguing the simultaneous convictions are legally and logically inconsistent because one offense requires force and the other requires the absence of force.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether convictions for robbery (taking by force) and theft from the person (taking by means other than force) based on the same act are legally/logically inconsistent | The People argued the jury could view the beating and the physical removal of items as temporally distinct acts or apply the course-of-transaction reasoning to convict on both | Delgado argued that the statutes are mutually exclusive: an element of one (use of force) negates an essential element of the other (taken by means other than force), so both convictions cannot stand for the same taking | The court held the verdicts are plainly legally and logically inconsistent because the force element of robbery negates the non-force element of theft; plain error requiring reversal and a new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Dunn v. United States, 284 U.S. 390 (establishes general rule that inconsistent acquittal/conviction verdicts are often left undisturbed)
- United States v. Powell, 469 U.S. 57 (jury inconsistency can reflect compromise or mistake; not always reversible)
- People v. Frye, 898 P.2d 559 (Colo. 1995) (verdicts convicting of offenses where an element of one negates an element of the other are legally and logically inconsistent)
- People v. Weare, 155 P.3d 527 (Colo. App. 2006) (apply element-negation test to inconsistent verdicts)
- People v. Warner, 801 P.2d 1187 (Colo. 1990) (theft-from-person statute covers situations lacking force; context for identical meaning of "force")
- People v. Beatty, 80 P.3d 847 (Colo. App. 2003) (earlier division maximized verdicts by vacating lesser conviction; court here disagreed with remedy)
- People v. Lee, 914 P.2d 441 (Colo. App. 1995) (same as Beatty on remedy; declined as controlling)
- People v. Glover, 893 P.2d 1311 (Colo. 1995) (maximizing verdicts where offenses included same elements; distinguished as inapplicable here)
- People v. Bartowsheski, 661 P.2d 235 (Colo. 1983) (same as Glover; foundational maximizing precedent distinguished)