People v. Johnson
2013 WL 4163993
Colo. Ct. App.2013Background
- Defendant, Johnson, was convicted by jury of escape after a long time at large since 1975.
- He escaped incarceration in 1975 and remained at large until 2007 when arrested and returned to Colorado custody.
- Initial speedy-trial challenges were resolved on remand; he was retried and convicted in 2010.
- Statute of limitations issue: whether escape is a continuing offense affects when limitations clock starts.
- Court held escape is a continuing offense; limitations did not begin until return to Colorado custody in 2007.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is escape a continuing offense for statute of limitations purposes? | Johnson argues not continuing; limitations started with dismissal. | State argues continuing offense delays limitations until custody is regained. | Escape is a continuing offense; limitations do not run until return. |
| When does ‘returned to custody’ occur for limitation purposes? | Return occurred upon arrest in 1990 (California). | Return only when back to Colorado custody; 2007 return. | Return to custody is when custody is transferred to the original jurisdiction; 2007. |
| Was exclusion of evidence harmless error regarding res gestae? | Exclusion could have explained circumstances; admissibility important. | Evidence necessary to explain mental state and circumstances. | Harmless error; exclusion benefited defendant and did not require reversal. |
| Should the jury be instructed on a choice of evils defense for escape? | Evidence supports defense instruction. | No voluntary submission to authorities after reaching safety; defense warranted. | No error; not entitled to choice of evils instruction. |
| Did outrageous government conduct grounds warrant dismissal timely? | Motion filed timely enough; merits considered. | Government conduct warranted dismissal. | Court did not abuse discretion; late filing excusable or not prejudicial given record. |
Key Cases Cited
- Thoro Products Co. v. United States, 70 P.3d 1188 (Colo. 2003) (continuing offense framework; limited application)
- Toussie v. United States, 397 U.S. 112 (U.S. 1970) (continuing-offense doctrine: limited circumstances)
- Daniels, 240 P.3d 409 (Colo. App. 2009) (statutory interpretation harmonization)
- People v. Lanzieri, 25 P.3d 1170 (Colo. 2001) (definition of escape elements)
- People v. Velarde, 657 P.2d 953 (Colo. 1983) (fundamental purpose in punishing escape)
- Massey v. People, 649 P.2d 1070 (Colo. 1982) (escape as voluntary departure with intent to evade justice)
- People v. McKinney, 99 P.3d 1038 (Colo. 2004) (statute of limitations standard of review)
- People v. Pérez, 129 P.3d 1090 (Colo. App. 2005) (presumption against continuing-offense construction)
- People v. DeWitt, 275 P.3d 728 (Colo. App. 2011) (absent substantial evidence for affirmative defenses)