Court Opinion

ID: 9571751
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:34:50.717418+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:30:54.914193
License: Public Domain

BERMAN, Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur with the majority opinion for parts I and II, but I respectfully dissent to part III.
The jury here was given the following model instruction:
“The burden of proof is upon the People to prove to the satisfaction of the jury beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of all the elements necessary to constitute the crime charged. *390Reasonable doubt means a doubt based upon reason and common sense which arises from a fair and rational consideration of all the evidence, or the lack of evidence, in the case. It is a doubt which is not a vague, speculative or imaginary doubt, but such a doubt as would cause reasonable men to hesitate to act in matters of importance to themselves.
If you find from the evidence that each and every element has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, you will find the defendant guilty. If you find from the evidence that the People have failed to prove any one or more of the elements beyond a reasonable doubt you will find the defendant not guilty.”
This instruction was given to the jury at the same time as the verdict forms for each substantive offense and interrogatories regarding use of a deadly weapon under the “violent crime” statute. Section 16 — 11— 309, C.R.S.1973 (1978 Repl. Vol. 8). Thus, I must assume that the jury applied the reasonable doubt standard contained in the above instruction to the finding regarding use of a deadly weapon.
This case can be distinguished from those which construe the habitual criminal statute, see, e.g., People v. Mascarenas, 666 P.2d 101 (Colo.1983), because, unlike here, habitual criminal charges are tried in a separate proceeding. People v. Chavez, 632 P.2d 574 (Colo.1981). Although after trial of the substantive offenses, the jury is given a burden of proof instruction, the jury would not necessarily apply that instruction to a separate habitual criminal proceeding after which separate instructions are given. Thus, although a renewed instruction regarding the burden of proof may be necessary following a habitual criminal trial, a separate burden of proof instruction is not necessary for the finding regarding use of a deadly weapon.