Court Opinion

ID: 9548554
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:05:21.046855+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:19:07.899295
License: Public Domain

Mr. Chief Justice McWilliams
dissenting:
I dissent from the majority opinion and would affirm the judgment as it relates to both counts of the information.
Count one of the information charged the defendant with so-called aggravated robbery in the exact language of C.R.S. 1963, 40-5-1(1) and (2) (a) and (b). The first instruction given the jury set forth all of the material allegations contained in the aforesaid count one. The Jury by its verdict found defendant guilty of “robbery as charged in the first count of the information.” Under the circumstances it is as plain to me as two plus two equals four that the jury intended to find the defendant guilty of aggravated robbery.
The majority also perceive error in the part of the trial court in failing to give sua sponte an instruction on specific intent. Furthermore, in view of the disposition of the case, I surmise that the trial court, in the eyes of the majority, should have also given the jury additional forms of verdict on simple robbery. As concerns the matter of instructions, it is to be noted that no instruction on specific intent was tendered and the matter was not *113raised in the motion for new trial. As a matter of fact counsel for the defendant specifically stated that he had no objections to any of the instructions given the jury, nor did he himself tender any additional instruction. Similarly as concerns forms of verdict, counsel had no objection to the four forms of verdict submitted to the jury, nor did he request any additional forms of verdict relating to the lesser included offense of simple robbery.
The fact that counsel did not object either to the instructions or forms of verdict is not surprising when the nature of the defense is considered. It was the defendant’s theory of the case that he was not guilty of any offense whatsoever and that the People’s witness was mistaken in his identification of the defendant as one of the three robbers who carried a weapon. And in support of his theory of the case the defendant called ali'bi witnesses who attempted to establish that the defendant could not have committed any of the offenses charged. As we have recently stated in Phillips v. People, 170 Colo. 520, 462 P.2d 594, the rule in Colorado is that in a case in which a defendant is charged with aggravated robbery the trial judge need not give an instruction on simple robbery unless there is a request for such an instruction and the matter of intent is in some manner an issue in the case. As indicated, in the instant case no such instruction was requested and I submit that the matter of specific intent was not in any manner an issue in the case. Be that as it may, by the present disposition of this matter, the defendant nonetheless now stands convicted of simple robbery, when the only issue in the case was not the issue of intent, but the fundamental issue as to whether defendant was one of the gun-carrying robbers.
I would affirm the judgment in its entirety.
Mr. Justice Hodges concurs in this dissent.