Sylvia Johnson, 2023 CO 7

Sylvia Johnson bought a handgun at a pawn shop while Jaron Trujillo (her common‑law husband) was with her; Trujillo handled guns at the display.
Trujillo was legally prohibited from possessing firearms (prior felony and protection order); he was arrested later while in possession of the gun and told police Johnson had let him borrow it.
Johnson admitted she knew Trujillo was ineligible; she said she bought the gun for family safety and had told Trujillo where she stored it.
Jury was instructed to convict if Johnson knowingly purchased a firearm “for transfer to” an ineligible person; during deliberations jurors asked for a definition of “transfer” but the court did not provide one.
Johnson was convicted under § 18‑12‑111(1); the court of appeals affirmed, holding temporary transfers are covered and that Johnson waived vagueness challenges; the Colorado Supreme Court granted certiorari.
The Supreme Court held that “transfer” includes temporary transfers and shared use, that Johnson forfeited (but did not waive) her vagueness claims, and that any error was not plain; it affirmed the judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence proved a "transfer" under § 18‑12‑111(1) (sufficiency)	"Transfer" includes temporary transfers/shared use; evidence (pawn shop conduct, Trujillo’s statement) suffices	"Transfer" means permanent transfer only; prosecution failed to prove transfer	Court: "Transfer" includes temporary/shared use; evidence sufficient to support conviction
Whether Johnson waived vagueness challenge by opposing a jury definition	People: Johnson asked court not to define "transfer" for jury, so she waived the claim	Johnson: she did not intentionally relinquish her right to challenge statute’s constitutionality	Court: No waiver; Johnson forfeited the claim (not preserved at trial)
Whether statutory vagueness warranted reversal (plain‑error review)	Any instructional omission was not obvious; no plain error	Statute is vague on its face and as applied because "transfer" is undefined	Court: No plain error — before this decision no settled legal definition of "transfer," so error not obvious

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (establishes sufficiency‑of‑the‑evidence standard)
Clark v. People, 232 P.3d 1287 (Colo. 2010) (standard for de novo review of sufficiency and substantial evidence test)
People v. Bennett, 515 P.2d 466 (Colo. 1973) (use of substantial evidence test)
McBride v. People, 511 P.3d 613 (Colo. 2022) (statutory interpretation principles; de novo review)
People v. Lucy, 467 P.3d 332 (Colo. 2020) (use of dictionaries to determine statutory meaning)
People v. Graves, 368 P.3d 317 (Colo. 2016) (vagueness doctrine and notice requirement)
United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285 (2008) (vagueness tests: notice and arbitrary enforcement concerns)
United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (distinguishing waiver and forfeiture; plain‑error review)
People v. Rediger, 416 P.3d 893 (Colo. 2018) (waiver v. forfeiture distinctions; plain‑error standard)