People v. Romero

Summary

The Colorado Court of Appeals held that a reasonable juror could find that the small hatchet used by Diego Santiago Romero to threaten the victim qualified as a "knife" under Colorado's felony-menacing statute. The court rejected the argument that the statutory amendment narrowing felony menacing required a narrower definition of knife, reversed the district court's reduction of the charge, and remanded with directions to reinstate the felony-menacing charge.

Holdings

1. A reasonable juror could find that the particular small hatchet Romero used was a knife under section 18-3-206 because it was a sharp-edged blade attached to a handle and was used to place the victim in fear of imminent serious bodily injury.
2. There was probable cause to believe that Romero used a knife in committing menacing, and the jury must ultimately decide whether the charged conduct constituted menacing by use of a firearm, knife, or bludgeon.
3. The district court abused its discretion by reducing the charge from felony menacing to misdemeanor menacing based on its conclusion that the hatchet was not a knife.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the small hatchet Romero used to threaten the victim could qualify as a "knife" under Colorado's menacing statute.
2. Whether the evidence at the preliminary hearing established probable cause to support a felony menacing charge.
3. Whether the district court abused its discretion by reducing the charge from felony menacing to misdemeanor menacing.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded