2014 COA 159
Colo. Ct. App.2014Background
- Laura Gutierrez-Vite and her husband moved into a Fraser, Colorado vacation home they did not own and recorded an affidavit claiming adverse possession on October 7, 2011.
- Owner A.H. lived in Hawaii, the property was in foreclosure, and A.H. had not authorized their entry. Police ordered them to vacate; they remained and police later changed the locks and posted no-trespassing signs.
- On November 4, 2011, they recorded a limited durable power of attorney related to the property. Defendant was arrested December 2, 2011.
- Criminal charges included attempted theft and two counts of first-degree offering a false instrument for recording (based on the affidavit and power of attorney); trespass was dismissed.
- Defendant sought to assert a mistake-of-law defense based on Colorado’s adverse possession statute and requested jury instructions reflecting a good-faith belief in entitlement under adverse possession; the trial court denied those requests and instructed the jury adverse possession was not a defense.
- Jury convicted; defendant appealed challenging denial of the mistake-of-law defense and omitted jury instructions. The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendant could assert a mistake-of-law defense based on Colorado’s adverse possession statute | State: statute does not permit conduct and mistake-of-law defense requires law to permit the conduct | Gutierrez-Vite: she reasonably believed adverse possession law entitled her to the property and thus negated criminal liability | Denied — adverse possession statute did not permit her conduct; mistake-of-law defense unavailable |
| Whether the trial court erred by refusing mistake-of-fact jury instructions (good-faith belief property was abandoned) | State: no evidence of good-faith belief sufficient to support instruction | Gutierrez-Vite: evidence showed she believed property was abandoned and she acted in good faith | Denied — requested instructions were framed as mistake of law (not fact) and record lacked support for factual belief that would negate culpability |
| Whether the trial court erred by instructing the jury that adverse possession is not a defense | State: instruction proper because adverse possession does not authorize trespass or short-term occupancy | Gutierrez-Vite: instruction improperly foreclosed her defense | Denied — instruction appropriate given adverse possession cannot vest title for 18 years nor authorize intervening trespass |
| Whether definitional "companion" instructions were required to negate mens rea | State: terms were not elements and not necessary; counsel’s record-based purpose was vaguer | Gutierrez-Vite: definitions (abandonment, possession, residence) were necessary to negate mens rea | Denied — record did not show those definitions would negate culpable mental states and they were unnecessary for jury clarity |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Bossert, 722 P.2d 998 (Colo. 1986) (mistake of law defense limited to conduct permitted by statute/regulation/written official interpretation)
- People v. Holmes, 959 P.2d 406 (Colo. 1998) (ignorance of the law is not a defense absent statutory authorization)
- Smith v. Hayden, 772 P.2d 47 (Colo. 1989) (elements and duration requirements for adverse possession)
- Beaver Creek Ranch, L.P. v. Gordman Leverich Ltd. Liab. Ltd. P'ship, 226 P.3d 1155 (Colo. App. 2009) (adverse possession requires good-faith belief element for claims vesting after 2008)
- Riley v. People, 266 P.3d 1089 (Colo. 2011) (trial court duty to instruct on applicable law)
- B.B. & C. P’ship v. Edelweiss Condo. Ass’n, 218 P.3d 310 (Colo. 2009) (standard of review for legal questions)