v. Struckmeyer, 2020 CO 76

A jury convicted Michael Struckmeyer of child abuse (knowingly or recklessly), a class 3 felony, and child abuse (criminal negligence), a class 4 felony, based on the same incident.
A division of the Colorado Court of Appeals concluded the convictions were logically and legally inconsistent (knowing/reckless implies awareness of risk; criminal negligence implies unawareness), found plain error, reversed the convictions, and ordered a new trial.
The People petitioned for certiorari; the Colorado Supreme Court granted review.
The Supreme Court reviewed the legal question de novo and examined preservation/plain-error principles (the People had agreed the issue was reviewable in the court of appeals).
Citing People v. Rigsby and § 18-1-503(3), the Court held Colorado law treats culpable mental states as hierarchical (intentional > knowing > reckless > criminal negligence) and proof of a higher state necessarily establishes any lesser state; therefore the knowing/reckless verdict legally subsumes criminal negligence.
The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals, reinstated the conviction (the trial court had already merged the class 4 conviction into the class 3 conviction), and Justice Gabriel dissented, arguing the verdicts are both logically and legally inconsistent and that a new trial should be ordered.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether guilty verdicts for knowing/reckless child abuse and criminally negligent child abuse based on the same conduct are mutually exclusive/legal inconsistent	People: Not inconsistent—§ 18-1-503(3) creates a hierarchy; proving knowing or reckless necessarily establishes criminal negligence	Struckmeyer (and COA): Inconsistent—knowing/reckless requires awareness of risk; criminal negligence requires unawareness; cannot both be true	The Court held they are not legally inconsistent; higher culpable states subsume lesser ones under § 18-1-503(3) so no mutual exclusivity exists
Whether the court of appeals erred by reversing for a new trial instead of maximizing verdicts by affirming the higher conviction and merging the lesser	People: COA erred; convictions can be maximized and the lesser merged into the greater (no new trial needed)	Struckmeyer/COA: Because verdicts were inconsistent, reversal and new trial required	The Court reversed COA and reinstated the judgment; the trial court’s merger of the class 4 conviction into the class 3 conviction avoids multiplicity/double jeopardy concerns

People v. Rigsby, 471 P.3d 1068 (Colo. 2020) (establishing that culpable mental states are hierarchical and proof of a higher state establishes lesser states under § 18-1-503(3))
People v. Delgado, 450 P.3d 703 (Colo. 2019) (mutual exclusivity of verdicts is a question of law reviewed de novo)
People v. Rediger, 416 P.3d 893 (Colo. 2018) (distinguishing waiver from forfeiture and setting out the plain-error standard)
United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (U.S. 1993) (framework for waiver vs forfeiture in appellate review)