Court Opinion

ID: 9847228
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:56:17.368323+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:03.912029
License: Public Domain

VAN CISE, Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur in parts I and II of the majority opinion and in the affirmance of defendant’s conviction of conspiracy to commit extortion. I respectfully dissent from part III and, instead, would affirm his conviction of attempted theft.
The jury was instructed that a person commits the crime of attempted theft if:
“He voluntarily engages in conduct constituting a substantial step toward the commission of the crime of Theft and has the required culpability of acting knowingly and intentionally which is neces*1027sary in order to be convicted of the crime of Theft.
“The elements of criminal attempt are therefore:
“(1) Voluntarily engaging in conduct constituting a substantial step toward the commission of the crime of Theft and “(2) Having the required culpability of acting knowingly and intentionally which is necessary in order to be convicted of the crime of Theft.”
Defendant contends that this instruction was erroneous in that it failed to define the term “substantial step.” Admittedly, the instruction could have been more artfully drawn. However, failure to define “substantial step” does not rise to the level of plain error. See Crim. P. 52; People v. Dillon, 655 P.2d 841 (Colo.1982); People v. Barker, 180 Colo. 28, 501 P.2d 1041 (1972).