People v. Ridgeway, 307 P.3d 126

Defendant Ridgeway appeals a conviction for possession of burglary tools after a jury found he possessed such tools with no required intent element in the instruction.
A burglary at a check cashing business yielded cash, a cash drawer, and a counterfeit-detection light.
Ridgeway was a passenger in a Jeep stopped for erratic driving; officers observed a gun and concealed items.
Search of Ridgeway yielded a radio, mirror, pocketknife, and headlamp; Jeep yielded tools and burglary-related items identified as from the burglary.
Ridgeway admitted to possessing a car full of burglary tools and disputed participation in the burglary; trial court instructed on possession without the intent element.
The court reversed and remanded for a new trial due to the missing intent element in the jury instruction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the jury instruction omit the mens rea element of possession of burglary tools?	Ridgeway	Ridgeway	Yes; instructional omission occurred.
Was the error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt?	People	Ridgeway	No; error not Harmless.
Was Ridgeway's instructional error preserved for appeal?	People	Ridgeway	Yes; Ridgeway preserved by tendering an alternative instruction.

Griego v. People, 19 P.3d 1 (Colo.2001) (harmless error standard when instructional error preserved)
People v. Harris, 48 P.3d 221 (Colo.2002) (burden on People to disprove prejudice)
Chastain v. People, 733 P.2d 1206 (Colo.1987) (intent required with burglary tools)
Gurule v. People, 924 P.2d 1164 (Colo.App.1996) (mere possession of a tool is not enough without intent to use for burglary)
Chastain v. People, 788 P.2d 1210 (Colo.1989) (Articulates elements of possession of burglary tools)
Geisendorfer v. People, 991 P.2d 308 (Colo.App.1999) (omission may be harmless where element not contested)
People v. Johnson, 74 P.3d 349 (Colo.App.2002) (instruction defect not cured by other portions of charge)