People v. Naranjo
405 P.3d 279
Colo. Ct. App.2015Background
- On a highway, Naranjo was charged with two counts of felony menacing after victims (a father and daughter) testified he rested or pointed a gun at them and said, “You don’t want to fuck with me,” causing fear.
- Naranjo’s trial testimony: the gun slid while he braked; he reached over, raised the gun, and placed it in the glove box to prevent accidental discharge; he denied threatening or knowing the victims saw the gun.
- Defense requested a lesser non-included offense instruction for disorderly conduct with a deadly weapon (recklessly displaying a deadly weapon in a public place calculated to alarm). Trial court denied that request, finding Naranjo’s benign mens rea theory incompatible with the lesser charge; it did instruct on harassment (unrelated to the gun).
- Jury convicted Naranjo of two counts of felony menacing and acquitted on the harassment counts.
- Naranjo appealed, arguing the court erred by refusing the lesser non-included instruction; the appellate court reviewed whether evidence supported giving that instruction and whether the error was harmless.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Naranjo) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by refusing to instruct on the lesser non-included offense of disorderly conduct with a deadly weapon | The requested instruction contradicted Naranjo’s testimony (he denied threat/knowledge) and thus was properly refused | The evidence supported a rational basis for the lesser offense because Naranjo handled and displayed a gun on a public highway in a manner a jury could find reckless and objectively alarming | Reversed: court erred in refusing the instruction — evidence supported giving it and Garcia did not bar it |
| Whether Naranjo was in a “public place” for the disorderly-conduct statute | (implicit) highway conduct can be outside the statute | Highway is a public place under the criminal code definition | Highway is a public place; trial court erred to the extent it concluded otherwise |
| Whether Garcia (inconsistent sworn testimony) precludes an instruction when defendant maintains innocence | Garcia supports denying inconsistent lesser-offense instructions where defendant’s sworn testimony contradicts the basis for the lesser charge | Garcia is distinguishable; no prior sworn inconsistent statement here, so defendant may request an inconsistent instruction if evidence provides a rational basis | Garcia inapplicable; Brown and precedent permit inconsistent lesser-offense instructions absent prior contradictory sworn statements |
| Whether the instructional error was harmless given the jury could convict on harassment instead | Harassment instruction was available and jury convicted on menacing, so any error was harmless | Harassment does not capture the gun-displaying theory; absent the requested instruction jury faced an all-or-nothing choice and the error was not harmless | Error was not harmless; remand for new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Garcia, 826 P.2d 1259 (Colo. 1992) (refused lesser-offense instruction where defendant’s sworn trial testimony directly contradicted the statement supporting that instruction)
- People v. Skinner, 825 P.2d 1045 (Colo. App. 1991) (lesser included/non-included instruction standards explained)
- People v. Rivera, 525 P.2d 431 (Colo. 1974) (three-part test for lesser non-included offense instruction; rational basis standard)
- People v. Torres, 848 P.2d 911 (Colo. 1993) (disorderly conduct with a deadly weapon requires objective display that would alarm a reasonable observer)
- Brown v. People, 239 P.3d 764 (Colo. 2010) (defendant may maintain innocence and still obtain an inconsistent lesser-instruction absent prior conflicting sworn testimony)
- Mathews v. United States, 485 U.S. 58 (U.S. 1988) (a defendant is entitled to instructions on any recognized defense supported by sufficient evidence)