Court Opinion

ID: 9615063
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:30:52.703392+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:21:11.101315
License: Public Domain

Justice LOHR
concurring in part, dissenting in part, and concurring in the judgment:
The majority holds that the trial judge properly responded to the jury’s question whether the defendant could be found “guilty by association” by simply referring the jury back to the original instructions. The majority reasons that the instructions made it clear that the defendant could be found guilty of sexual assault on a child only if he himself made the prohibited contact. I cannot agree that the instructions are free from ambiguity on this point or that a reference to the original instructions would be sufficient to dispel the jury’s confusion about an issue so central to the determination of the defendant’s guilt. I concur in the affirmance of the judgment of conviction, however, because defense counsel was fully advised and acquiesced in the court’s response to the jury’s question.
I.
The defendant, Michael Bryan Boothe, was charged with sexual assault on a child,1 based upon an incident that occurred in January 1987. Although substantial evidence was introduced at trial concerning alleged sexual contact between the victim and L.C. — a seventeen-year-old male in the company of Boothe — Boothe was tried solely on the basis of his own conduct and not on the basis of complicity in L.C.’s conduct.2
Jury Instruction No. 10 set out the following elements of the crime of sexual assault on a child:
1. That the defendant,
2. in the State of Colorado, at or about the date and place charged,
3. knowingly
a. subjected another, not his or her spouse,
b. to any sexual contact, and
4. that person was less than fifteen years of age, and
*3775. the defendant was at least four years older than that person,
6. at the time of the commission of the act.
(Emphasis added.) “Sexual contact” was defined by Jury Instruction No. 12 as
the knowingly touching of the victim’s intimate parts by the actor, or of the actor’s intimate parts by the victim, or the knowingly touching of the clothing covering the immediate area of the victim’s or actor’s intimate parts' if that sexual contact can reasonably be construed as being for the purposes of sexual arousal, gratification, or abuse.
(Emphasis added.)
During deliberations, the jury sent a note to the trial judge, asking “Can one be judged guilty by association?”. The judge’s affidavit in the supplemental record prepared on limited remand reflects that the judge, upon receiving the note from the jury, contacted the trial counsel and advised them of the contents of the jury’s note. The judge asked counsel if they had any requests or suggestions as to how to respond, and then suggested that the appropriate response “may well be to simply advise the jury to read the instructions.” According to the judge’s affidavit, “[bjoth trial counsel had no other requests or suggestions and did agree that the appropriate response would be to advise the jury to read the instructions.” After receiving consent by counsel, the judge wrote on the jury’s note “Please read the instructions” and returned the note to the jury. The jury found Boothe guilty of sexual assault on a child.
II.
The majority concludes that it was apparent that referring the jury back to the original instructions would answer the jury’s inquiry and would adequately advise the jurors that Boothe could not be convicted based on complicity in L.C.’s conduct. See maj. op. at 375. I find the instructions somewhat ambiguous on this issue. The jury was instructed that as an element of the offense the defendant must knowingly subject another to sexual contact. (Instruction No. 10). Sexual contact was defined as contact with “the actor.” (Instruction No. 12). Nowhere is “actor” defined to be the defendant. Thus, the instructions leave open the possible interpretation that Boothe could be found guilty if he subjected the victim to sexual contact with L.C. — “the actor.”
Even if the jury instructions were not ambiguous in this respect, the inquiry by the jury indicates uncertainty concerning the elements of the crime as set forth in the instructions. The obvious concern of the jury was whether the defendant could be held responsible for the acts of L.C. This is a central issue of criminal responsibility, not, as the majority characterizes it, “an abstract question which did not pertain to the law of the case.” See maj. op. at 375. Nor did the question call for “an opinion on a matter not in evidence.” See id. There was extensive evidence of L.C.’s conduct.
The jury disclosed its uncertainty after having received the allegedly clear instructions. Mere reference to the same instructions that elicited this misunderstanding is inadequate, at least in the absence of consent by counsel. In Leonardo v. People, 728 P.2d 1252 (Colo.1986), we stated that “[a] jury should be referred back to instructions only when it is apparent that the jury has overlooked some portion of the instructions or when the instructions clearly answer the jury’s inquiry.” Id. at 1255. At the very least, if the trial court believes that a portion of the instructions clearly answers the jury’s inquiry, the trial court should refer to the specific instruction that does so. See People v. Alexis, 806 P.2d 929, 931-32 (Colo.1991) (holding adequate the trial court’s response to a jury inquiry concerning the meaning of a stipulation referred to in Instruction No. 19 — “Both the stipulation and Instruction No. 19 mean what they say and no more. Please refer to them again.”).
III.
I believe, nevertheless, that the agreement by defense counsel in this case to the response by the trial court to the jury’s *378inquiry prevents Boothe from now asserting error. Leonardo and Alexis are distinguishable from the present case on this basis. In Leonardo, the judge answered the jury’s question without giving defense counsel notice or opportunity to object. In Alexis, defense counsel vigorously objected to the content of the court’s answer to the jury question and proposed a different response, which the court rejected.
In Valley v. People, 165 Colo. 555, 559-62, 441 P.2d 14, 16 (Colo.1968), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 925, 89 S.Ct. 256, 21 L.Ed.2d 260 (1968), we held that failure by defense counsel to object to both the content of a clarifying instruction given by the trial court and the presentation of the instruction orally in response to a jury inquiry, coupled with his active participation in obtaining a supplemental instruction, waived any right to assert error.3 Cf. People v. Aalbu, 696 P.2d 796, 810 (Colo.1985) (Failure of a trial court to instruct on a lesser included offense in absence of a request by the defense is not plain error, for it may be assumed that the decision not to request such an instruction was based upon an election to take a chance on outright conviction or acquittal of the principal charge rather than provide the jury with an opportunity to convict of a lesser offense.); People v. Paris, 182 Colo. 148, 151-52, 511 P.2d 893, 895 (1973) (same, in absence of request by prosecution).
In Valley we found it persuasive that Crim.P. 30 requires that objections to instructions be made prior to presentation to the jury and that only the grounds raised by objection may form a basis for review. Valley, 165 Colo. at 561, 441 P.2d at 16. We concluded that failure to object to a clarifying instruction, when given an opportunity to do so, waives any right to assert error on appeal unless the error so misstated the law as to constitute plain error. Id.; see generally Crim.P. 52(b) (defining plain error); Wilson v. People, 743 P.2d 415, 419-20 (elaborating on that definition).
Moreover, in People v. Zapata, 779 P.2d 1307 (Colo.1989), we held that the doctrine of invited error precluded a defendant from objecting on appeal to the legal sufficiency of a jury instruction drafted and tendered by the defense. In Zapata, the majority stated that “[w]e do not approve the assertion of error on appeal by the very party who injected that error into the trial.” 779 P.2d at 1310. Although I am not persuaded that the doctrine of invited error should apply absent active participation by the defense counsel in drafting the response (see, e.g., Zapata, 779 P.2d at 1308-09 (invited error applies when offending instruction is proposed by the defendant); People v. Collins, 730 P.2d 293, 304-05 (Colo.1986) (invited error applies when defendant objected to an instruction he later asserts should have been given)), I am convinced by the concerns raised in Zapata and Valley that under the facts of this case, acquiescence by defense counsel in the trial court’s response precludes assertion of error.4 Although the instructions given to Boothe’s jury are somewhat ambiguous, they do not misstate the law. Under these circumstances, the decision of defense counsel to agree to the proposed response was properly within the scope of counsel’s discretion as a matter of trial strategy.
For the foregoing reasons, I concur in part, dissent in part, and concur in the judgment of the court.
QUINN and MULLARKEY, JJ., join in this concurrence and dissent and concurrence in the judgment.

. § 18-3-405, 8B C.R.S. (1986).

. § 18-1-603, 8B C.R.S. (1986), defines what is commonly known as complicity as follows:
A person is legally accountable as principal for the behavior of another constituting a criminal offense if, with the intent to promote or facilitate the commission of the offense, he aids, abets, or advises the other person in planning or committing the offense.
(Emphasis added.) Complicity is not a separate crime but merely a theory by which one person becomes accountable for a criminal offense committed by another. People v. Thompson, 655 P.2d 416, 418 (Colo.1982). It is not necessary to charge complicity separately or specifically. Id. at 417, 418. Under the evidence, however, it appears that L.C.'s conduct was not shown to have constituted the criminal offense of sexual assault on a child, for in absence of evidence of his birth date it could not be determined that he was at least four years older than the thirteen-year-old victim. See § 18-3-405.

. Valley v. People involved an assertion that an oral clarifying instruction was prohibited by statute. 165 Colo, at 559-60, 441 P.2d at 16.

. I continue to adhere to the view that the issue whether invited error requires reversal should be addressed on a case-by-case basis. See Zapata, 779 P.2d at 1312 (Lohr, J., specially concurring).