Court Opinion

ID: 9558623
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:13:54.60847+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:09:28.442403
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice McWilliams
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent. In the first place in my view the matter of so-called “inconsistent verdicts” is a matter which was not really urged by the plaintiff in error in this court. Indeed, in his summary of argument, plaintiff in error makes no mention, as such, of this particular matter. I am most reluctant to resolve a writ of error on a point that has not been fully explored by the parties themselves.
Secondly, I am by no means convinced that the verdicts returned by the jury are in fact inconsistent, i.e., the verdict of not guilty as to aggravated robbery, and a verdict of guilty as to conspiracy. To illustrate my thinking in this regard, the jury under the evidence might well have determined that Robles at the time and place of the robbery did not possess the “intent, if resisted, to kill, maim or wound the person robbed,” which is an essential ingredient of aggravated robbery, and at the same time the jury in my view could have very consistently believed that Robles was nonetheless guilty of the crime of conspiracy. This is particularly so inasmuch as the evidence is that the victim did “resist” by *302firing at Robles and there is no evidence that Robles fired back, thereby tending to negate any intent to kill, maim or wound when resisted.
Thirdly, and more importantly, even if the verdicts be deemed inconsistent, such determination does not mean that the guilty verdict as to the conspiracy charge must be set aside and not permitted to stand. See Crane v. People, 91 Colo. 21, 11 P.2d 567 and Starr v. People, 113 Colo. 268, 157 P.2d 135. And in each of these cases it should be observed that it was the “same evidence” which was offered in support of the conspiracy charge and in support of the charge of obtaining money under false pretenses in the Crane case, and the charge of embezzlement in the Starr case. I deem the majority opinion in the instant case to be at odds with both the Crane and Starr cases.