Court Opinion

ID: 9552818
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 19:17:31.534991+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:29:05.422243
License: Public Domain

QUINN, Justice,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent. Complicity, as defined in section 18-1-603, C.R.S.1973 (1978 Repl.Vol. 8), requires the specific intent to promote or facilitate the commission of the crime for which assistance or advice is given. I do not believe the legislature *895intended the requisite “intent” for complicity to carry any meaning other than that attributed to the terms “intentionally” and “with intent” in section 18-1-501(5), C.R.S. 1973 (1978 Repl.Vol. 8). Because the trial court refused the respondent’s tendered instruction which defined “intentionally” in accordance with section 18-1-501(5), the jury in this case was permitted to return a guilty verdict without being adequately apprised of the mens rea necessary for guilt.
The respondent was prosecuted and convicted on the basis of the complicity principle of criminal responsibility. Complicity is not a separate and independent crime. Rather, it is a form of vicarious or associational responsibility by which a person is held criminally responsible for the conduct of another. See section 18-1-601, C.R.S. 1973 (1978 Repl.Vol. 8). The statutory definition of complicity in section 18-1-603 reflects a legislative decision to punish with equal severity as a principal anyone who aids or counsels another in the commission of a crime. In defining complicity, however, the legislature expressly recognized that the critical factor in imputing criminal responsibility under this doctrine is the offender’s “intent to promote or facilitate the commission of the offense.” In this respect, the statutory definition is consistent with the prevailing judicial doctrine on complicity, which requires a purposive attitude or conscious objective on the part of the offender towards the completion of the crime. See, e. g., Nye & Nissen v. United States, 336 U.S. 613, 69 S.Ct. 766, 93 L.Ed. 919 (1949); Roth v. United States, 339 F.2d 863 (10th Cir.1964); United States v. Peoni, 100 F.2d 401 (2d Cir. 1938). Our cases construing the former accessory statute, C.R.S. 1963, section 40-1-12, recognize this precept of criminal liability, e. g., People v. Marques, 184 Colo. 262, 520 P.2d 113 (1974); Harris v. People, 139 Colo. 9, 335 P.2d 550 (1959), as do our more recent cases construing the present complicity statute, e. g., People v. Larson, 194 Colo. 338, 572 P.2d 815 (1977); People v. Martin, 192 Colo. 491, 561 P.2d 776 (1977). Notwithstanding this persuasive precedent, the majority holds that although the element of intent to promote or facilitate the commission of the crime is a necessary ingredient of the complicity principle, a jury instruction defining the meaning of “intentionally” or “with intent” is “not applicable to or a necessary element of the definition of complicity.” Such a conclusion is contrary to the plain meaning of section 18-1-603.
When the legislature intended to define criminal responsibility in terms of a culpability required for some overriding crime, it has done so without equivocation. For example, criminal attempt, section 18-2-101(1), C.R.S.1973 (1978 Repl.Vol. 8), requires the offender to act “with the kind of culpability otherwise required for commission of an offense.” Clearly, the legislature would not have injected into the statutory definition of complicity the terms “with intent to promote or facilitate the commission of the offense” unless' it intended these terms as essential to criminal responsibility under the complicity principle. The reason for the mens rea of “intent” is obvious. One might aid, abet or advise another in the performance of certain acts, without necessarily possessing the specific intent or conscious objective thereby to promote or facilitate the commission of a crime. It is the mens rea element of complicity which serves to distinguish innocent or arguably suspicious behavior, on the one hand, from criminal conduct on the other.
The requirement of a higher degree of culpability for vicarious or associational responsibility is not unique to complicity. The crime of conspiracy requires a specific intent to promote or facilitate the commission of a crime, even though the crime which is the object of the conspiracy is not a specific intent offense. Section 18-2-201(1), C.R.S.1973 (1978 Repl.Vol. 8). Likewise, both criminal solicitation, section 18-2-301(1), C.R.S.1973 (1978 Repl.Vol. 8), and accessory, section 18-8-105(1), C.R.S.1973 (1978 Repl.Vol. 8), require a specific intent, regardless of the culpability element of the crime to which the solicitation or the rendering of assistance is directed.
In this case, the only mens rea defined for the jury was “knowingly.” Although *896“knowingly” is essential to theft, section 18-4-401(1), C.R.S.1973 (1978 Repl.Vol. 8), it is the respondent’s state of mind, not the state of mind of the actual thief, which is determinative of criminal responsibility under the complicity principle. Acting “knowingly” with respect to conduct or circumstance requires an awareness that one’s conduct is of such a nature or that a particular circumstance exists and, in the case of result, an awareness that one’s conduct is practically certain to cause the result. Section 18-1-501(6), C.R.S.1973 (1978 Repl.Vol. 8). As defined in section 18-1-501(6), C.R. S.1973 (1978 Repl.Vol. 8), “knowingly” is both qualitatively distinct from and less culpable than the mens rea of “intentionally.” “A person acts ‘intentionally’ or ‘with intent’ when his conscious objective is to cause the result proscribed by the statute defining the offense.” Section 18-1-501(5), C.R.S.1973 (1978 Repl.Vol. 8). The court’s instruction on “knowingly” failed to convey to the jury the culpable mental state necessary for a conviction under the complicity principle.
Today’s holding runs counter to the long line of decisions from this court holding that the failure to instruct the jury on the essential culpable mental state of a crime is reversible error. See, e. g., People v. Martinez, Colo., 634 P.2d 26 (1981); People v. Curtis, Colo., 627 P.2d 734 (1981); People v. Hardin, Colo., 607 P.2d 1291 (1980). These same decisions require the reversal of the respondent’s conviction here. Accordingly, I would affirm the court of appeals’ reversal of the respondent’s conviction due to the trial court’s failure to define the culpability requirement for criminal responsibility under the complicity principle.
I am authorized to say that ERICKSON and DUBOFSKY, JJ., join me in this dissent.