Summary
The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed Angelo Montoya’s convictions for attempted extreme indifference murder, reckless manslaughter, criminally negligent homicide, and accessory to crime arising from a shooting at a party. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support attempted extreme indifference murder, that Montoya could not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence for accessory to crime after requesting that lesser non-included offense, and that his convictions for reckless manslaughter and accessory to crime did not merge or require concurrent sentences. The opinion also addresses the mental-state requirements for attempted extreme indifference murder and the treatment of self-defense under Colorado law.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether sufficient evidence supported Montoya's conviction for attempted extreme indifference murder.
- Whether the prosecution had to separately disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt in prosecuting attempted extreme indifference murder.
- Whether Montoya was barred from challenging the sufficiency of the evidence for accessory to crime after requesting that the lesser non-included offense be submitted to the jury.
- Whether convictions for complicity in a crime and accessory to that same crime were legally impermissible or required vacation of the accessory conviction.
- Whether Montoya's simultaneous convictions for reckless manslaughter and accessory to crime merged or required concurrent sentences.
Holdings
- A conviction for attempted extreme indifference murder is supported when the evidence permits a reasonable fact finder to conclude that the defendant knowingly engaged in conduct strongly corroborative of a firm purpose to complete extreme indifference murder. Evidence that Montoya and his cousin repeatedly fired a lethal firearm indiscriminately toward a house full of people was sufficient.
- For extreme indifference murder, the prosecution must prove that the defendant was practically certain his conduct would cause death, which is equivalent to knowingly engaging in conduct creating a grave risk of death. For attempted extreme indifference murder, the prosecution need only prove knowing conduct strongly corroborative of the defendant's purpose to complete the offense.
- The prosecution was not required to disprove self-defense as a separate affirmative defense in this case. Because self-defense operated only by negating the elements of extreme indifference, recklessness, or criminal negligence, proving those elements necessarily disproved the claim that Montoya acted reasonably in self-defense.
- Montoya was estopped from challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his accessory-to-crime conviction because he requested that the lesser non-included offense be submitted to the jury as a tactical alternative to the charged homicide.
- Colorado law does not categorically bar separate convictions for complicity in a crime and accessory to that same crime. Accessory to crime is a separate offense, and the statutory restrictions on multiple convictions do not prohibit separate convictions merely because they arise from the same conduct or evidence.
Key quotations
“For conviction of attempted extreme indifference murder, as attempt liability has been construed to exist in this jurisdiction, there must be evidence from which a trier of fact can find that the actor was aware he was engaging in conduct strongly corroborative of the firmness of his purpose to complete the commission of the crime of extreme indifference murder” (683-84)
“In the absence of instructional error, Montoya is left with no more than the assertion that the prosecution failed to produce sufficient evidence to disprove self-defense.” (688)
“A criminal defendant’s due process right to insist that there be substantial evidence supporting a conviction is therefore not violated by forbidding him from taking a position on appeal contrary to the one he successfully urged upon the trial court.” (690)
“The statute does not limit multiple separate convictions of any kind that a defendant may suffer as a result of their being predicated on the same conduct or evidence, much less preclude separate convictions for being complicit in the commission of a crime and rendering assistance to another committing the same crime.” (691)
Factual background
At a large party in Wheat Ridge, Montoya and his friends were told to leave, a fight erupted, and guns were produced as Montoya and his companions were chased from the house. While running toward a car, Montoya fired multiple rounds from a nine-millimeter Glock semiautomatic handgun, and his cousin fired additional rounds from the same weapon while Montoya drove away. Ten shots were fired toward the house, one of which penetrated a bedroom window and killed a woman inside.
Procedural history
Montoya and his cousin were tried together after being indicted for extreme indifference murder. The jury acquitted Montoya of the charged murder but convicted him of attempted extreme indifference murder, reckless manslaughter, criminally negligent homicide, and accessory to crime. The court of appeals initially reversed the homicide convictions based on the absence of a multiple-assailant self-defense instruction, but the Colorado Supreme Court vacated that judgment and remanded for reconsideration in light of Riley v. People. On remand, the court of appeals affirmed all convictions and sentences. The Colorado Supreme Court partially granted Montoya's petition for certiorari and affirmed.