Court Opinion

ID: 9537696
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 07:21:34.811076+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:56:54.283229
License: Public Domain

Judge METZGER
specially concurs.
Because I agree with the result in part III of the majority opinion, but disagree with the analysis, I specially concur.
Defendant has contended that the two verdicts of not guilty of aggravated robbery are inconsistent with the verdicts of conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery. The majority concluded that defendant is precluded from raising this issue on appeal because defense counsel “deliberately acquiesced in the response which the court provided to the jury’s question [on the issue].”
I disagree with this rationale for two reasons. First, contrary to the majority’s assumption, the record provides no basis for us to determine whether defense counsel’s acquiescence was a deliberate strategic maneuver or not. Second, and more importantly, the court’s answer was legally correct. Therefore, even if defense counsel had objected to the proposed answer to the jury’s inquiry, the objection would be unfounded.
Consequently, I do not believe that, under the circumstances here, we can impute error to defense counsel’s actions.
Instead, I would merely reject defendant's argument concerning inconsistent verdicts.
The uncontradicted evidence shows that two establishments were robbed at gunpoint by someone other than defendant, that the individuals who committed those robberies were confederates of defendant, and that defendant and these two confederates had engaged in a robbery crime spree *549in the Colorado Springs area for several weeks. Defendant, in a confession to a police detective, described the gun used in each of these robberies; that description was independently verified by both victims and the gun was recovered from defendant’s confederates.
Defendant also testified at trial that he and his confederates had planned to rob each of the establishments. He stated that, for these two robberies, he drove the getaway car. There was no evidence corroborating this assertion.
The jury could have reasonably believed that defendant agreed with his confederates to commit the two robberies and that, based on the gun and the victims’ identifications, he was guilty of conspiracy. However, because defendant’s statement that he drove the getaway car was uncorroborated, the jury could have concluded that he did not aid, abet, or encourage the commission of these crimes. Thus, the verdicts of guilty of conspiracy to commit these two robberies are not inconsistent with the verdicts of not guilty of aggravated robbery on a complicity theory.
Accordingly, I would reject defendant’s contention to the contrary.