Court Opinion

ID: 9846752
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:47:57.091925+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:47.544015
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice McWilliams
specially concurring.
I specially concur and shall briefly explain my position in this matter.
The rule announced by the majority of this Court in Robles v. People, 160 Colo. 297, 417 P.2d 232 in my view dictates and requires that the judgment in the instant case be affirmed. It is only for this reason that I now concur in the determination that the defendant was properly acquitted of the charge of conspiracy by action of the trial court, even though a jury of his peers had theretofore determined otherwise.
It is still my very strong personal conviction that the two verdicts of the jury in the instant case are not necessarily inconsistent and that even if the verdicts be deemed inconsistent, under several prior decisions of this Court such a determination does not mean that the *164guilty verdict as to the conspiracy charge must be set aside and not permitted to stand. For a detailed statement as to my views on this particular subject, see my dissent in Robles v. People, supra.
Mr. Justice Kelley has authorized me to state that he joins in this specially concurring opinion.