2019 COA 63
Colo. Ct. App.2019Background
- Defendant Brittany Harrison and companion A.M. were found slumped/unresponsive in a Burger King; staff unsuccessfully tried to wake them and the manager called 911 out of concern.
- Police arrived; the corporal was able to rouse Harrison (she was sluggish and confused); A.M. remained unconscious and was transported to the hospital by paramedics.
- Officers searched Harrison’s belongings with consent and found heroin, methamphetamine, syringes, pipes, torches, foil, and other paraphernalia; Harrison was charged with possession of controlled substances and paraphernalia.
- The trial court instructed the jury on the affirmative defense of immunity for persons who suffer or report an emergency drug or alcohol overdose under § 18-1-711; the jury convicted Harrison.
- On appeal the sole disputed question was whether the prosecutor presented sufficient evidence to disprove that the manager reported an “emergency drug or alcohol overdose event” as defined by § 18-1-711(5).
- The Court of Appeals concluded the statute’s definition is objective (what a layperson would reasonably believe at the time of the call) and that the prosecution failed to disprove that a reasonable person would have believed an overdose was occurring; convictions were vacated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence was sufficient to disprove applicability of § 18-1-711 immunity (that a reported event qualified as an "emergency drug or alcohol overdose event") | Prosecution: manager’s report and the observed unresponsiveness supported a finding that no reasonable person would have believed an overdose occurred (so immunity inapplicable) | Defendant: manager’s 911 call described an acute condition a layperson would reasonably believe to be an overdose; evidence was insufficient to disprove immunity | Held: statute defines the event objectively; manager’s subjective belief and events after the call are irrelevant; evidence insufficient to disprove immunity; convictions vacated |
| Whether post-call developments (e.g., defendant later not needing medical attention) or caller’s subjective belief are relevant to determining immunity | Prosecution: post-call facts and manager’s later statements could undermine claim that an overdose was reported | Defendant: only the caller’s good-faith belief at the time of the call and an objective reasonable-person standard matter | Held: only the objectively reasonable perception at the time of the call and the caller’s good faith then are relevant; subsequent events are irrelevant |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Pickering, 276 P.3d 553 (Colo. 2012) (prosecution bears burden to disprove affirmative defense beyond a reasonable doubt)
- J.D.B. v. North Carolina, 564 U.S. 261 (2011) (subjective beliefs of actors are irrelevant where objective reasonable-person standard controls)
- United States v. Pauler, 857 F.3d 1073 (10th Cir. 2017) (reading meaning from statutory silence is inappropriate where Congress’ express language shows alternatives)
- People v. Delgado, 153 Cal. Rptr. 3d 260 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) (definition and examples of "coma" and discussion of acute unconsciousness in overdose contexts)