People v. Butcher
| Decision Date | 13 February 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 25415,25415 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William Frederick BUTCHER, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
John P. Moore, Atty. Gen., David A. Sorenson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for plaintiff-appellee.
Rollie R. Rogers, Colorado State Public Defender, J. D. MacFarlane, Chief Deputy State Public Defender, Kenneth J. Russell, Deputy State Public Defender, Denver, for defendant-appellant.
The defendant, William Frederick Butcher, was convicted of breaking and entering with intent to commit the crime of theft, in violation of 1967 Perm.Supp., C.R.S.1963, 40--3--5; and theft of over one hundred dollars ($100.00), in violation of 1967 Perm.Supp., C.R.S.1963, 40--5--2. In the process of instructing the jury on the crime of theft, the trial court erroneously omitted one of the two essential elements of that crime. The defendant maintains the trial court's use of this erroneous instruction constituted plain error and requires this Court to reverse his convictions for both theft and burglary. The People confess error in this matter on the basis of our recent decision in People v. Archuleta, Colo., 503 P.2d 346. We agree that Archuleta is controlling here and reverse the judgments of the district court.
Instruction 7 reads in pertinent part:
'The material allegations of the second count of the Information are:
'(1) That the defendant . . .
'(3) Committed theft by unlawfully, knowingly, and feloniously taking ski clothing, things of value, of a total and combined value of more than one hundred dollars ($100.00) from the Ski Shop, Inc.
This instruction permits the jury to convict of the crime of theft without proof of an essential element of that crime as defined by 1967 Perm.Supp., C.R.S.1963, 40--5--2, namely, the intent to permanently deprive another of the use and benefit of the property. People v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Peterson, 81SC189
...of plain error, such as the failure to instruct the jury on one of the essential elements of the crime charged. People v. Butcher, 180 Colo. 429, 506 P.2d 362 (1973). In such a case, the failure to object to the inadequate instructions can serve no strategic purpose. On the other hand, the ......
-
Chambers v. People, 82SC176
...187 Colo. 290, 530 P.2d 506 (1975), and a failure to do so as to every element of a crime charged is plain error. People v. Butcher, 180 Colo. 429, 506 P.2d 362 (1973). Under the plain error standard, applicable here, we must review the defendant's assignment of error to determine whether h......
- People v. Lewis, 25124
-
People v. Archuleta
...if the defendant's intent was that proscribed by the burglary statute. People v. Archuleta, 180 Colo. 156, 503 P.2d 346; People v. Butcher, 180 Colo. 429, 506 P.2d 362. Where, as in Archuleta and Butcher, the ulterior crime was theft, and the theft instruction given by the court was prejudi......