People v. Curtis
| Decision Date | 30 March 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 80SA58,80SA58 |
| Citation | 627 P.2d 734 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard John CURTIS, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
J. D. MacFarlane, Atty. Gen., Richard F. Hennessey, Deputy Atty. Gen., Mary J. Mullarkey, Sol. Gen., Kathleen M. Bowers, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for plaintiff-appellee.
Leland S. Huttner and Michael D. Brown, Denver, for defendant-appellant.
J. Gregory Walta, Colorado State Public Defender, Norman R. Mueller, Chief Appellate Deputy Public Defender, Denver, for amicus curiae Colorado State Public Defender.
The defendant, Richard John Curtis, appeals his conviction for extreme indifference murder in the first degree, section 18-3-102(1)(d), C.R.S. 1973 (1978 Repl. Vol. 8), resulting from the death of his female companion. He challenges the statute proscribing extreme indifference murder as unconstitutionally vague and as violative of equal protection of the laws. We conclude that the defendant's conviction is constitutionally infirm because the statutory proscription of extreme indifference murder violates equal protection of the laws under Article II, Section 25, of the Colorado Constitution, and we reverse and remand for that reason. Because of this disposition, it is unnecessary to address the defendant's other claims in connection with evidential and procedural rulings of the trial court.
The defendant was charged with murder in the first degree after deliberation 1 and murder in the first degree by extreme indifference. 2 The evidence at trial established that the defendant had been living with the victim for over a year. Their relationship had been characterized by frequent acts of violence towards each other stemming from what psychiatric witnesses described as a sadomasochistic alliance.
The defendant spent the evening of December 20, 1978, drinking at a bar with two fellow employees and the wife of one of them. Later in the evening the victim joined them and the drinking continued there and at another bar. The defendant left the party in anger over what he believed were the victim's flirtations with other men and he returned home. The victim remained with the drinking party, becoming quite intoxicated, and eventually was taken home by her friends.
Shortly after arriving home she and the defendant engaged in an argument that culminated in severe physical violence. The defendant initially attempted to place the victim in a shower stall and to administer her a cold shower in order to sober her up. She came out of the shower and hit the defendant with several objects. He then wrestled with her and beat her severely about her entire body.
The defendant was awakened the next morning by the victim vomiting in bed. He removed the soiled sheet, washed the victim's face and left the house to run errands. Upon returning home at about 1:30 p. m. he observed the victim still lying in bed. He fell asleep watching television and several hours later awoke to loud gurgles made by the victim's erratic breathing. The defendant realized something was wrong but did nothing. A few hours later the victim expired. Medical testimony indicated that the victim's body had at least sixty bruises of recent origin. The cause of death was cardiorespiratory arrest due to brain injury.
The trial court instructed the jury on first degree murder after deliberation and first degree murder by extreme indifference. The culpability instruction on extreme indifference murder stated that the culpable mental state for that offense was "knowingly". That element, however, was defined only in terms of conduct and circumstance but not as to result. The instruction, as pertinent to extreme indifference murder, stated as follows:
"A person acts 'knowingly' with respect to conduct or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense when he is aware that his conduct is of such nature or that such circumstance exists."
The jury was also instructed that if they did not find the defendant guilty of murder in the first degree, they may consider the lesser offenses of murder in the second degree, 3 reckless manslaughter 4 and criminally negligent homicide. 5 The jury returned one verdict, guilty of extreme indifference murder.
The defendant's principal contention is that extreme indifference murder, as defined in section 18-3-102(1)(d), violates equal protection of the laws because the statutory definition of that crime is indistinguishable from second degree murder. Our recent decision in People v. Marcy, Colo., 628 P.2d 69 (1981), controls the resolution of this issue. Marcy held that the statutory definition of extreme indifference murder violates equal protection of the laws under Article II, Section 25, of the Colorado Constitution because that crime is not sufficiently distinguishable from second degree murder to warrant the substantial differential in penalty authorized by the statutory scheme:
"By virtue of the 1977 amendment to the Colorado Criminal Code 'knowingly' was substituted for 'intentionally' in section 18-3-102(1)(d). Colo.Sess.Laws 1977, ch. 224, 18-3-102(1)(d) at 960. The elements of extreme indifference murder, as applicable to this case, are therefore: (1) under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life; (2) knowingly engaging in conduct that creates a grave risk of death to another; and (3) thereby causing the death of another. Second degree murder was likewise reduced to a general intent crime by deleting 'intentionally' and substituting 'knowingly'. Colo.Sess. Laws 1977, ch. 224, 18-3-103(1)(a) at 960. As provided in section 18-3-103(1)(a), second degree murder consists of causing the death of a person knowingly. Section 18-1-501(6), C.R.S. 1973 (1978 Repl. Vol. 8), defines knowingly or willfully as follows:
On the basis of Marcy the defendant's conviction for extreme indifference murder must be reversed.
A reversal of a conviction based on a statutory crime that is constitutionally deficient as substantially indistinguishable...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Roark
...)." Colo., 628 P.2d at 80. Accord, People v. Lee, Colo., 630 P.2d 583 (1981); People v. Gurule, Colo., 628 P.2d 99 (1981); People v. Curtis, Colo., 627 P.2d 734 (1981). Our decision in Marcy and the cases which have followed it require that the defendant's conviction for extreme indifferenc......
-
People v. Jefferson
...no rational basis for distinguishing that form of first degree murder from second degree murder." Id. at 80.6 See, e.g., People v. Curtis, 627 P.2d 734 (Colo.1981); People v. Gurule, 628 P.2d 99 (Colo.1981); People v. Lee, 630 P.2d 583 ...
-
People v. Lee, 80SA314
...differential in penalty authorized by the statutory scheme. Accord, People v. Gurule, Colo., 628 P.2d 99 (1981); People v. Curtis, Colo., 627 P.2d 734 (1981). Accordingly, the defendant's conviction of murder in the first degree must be The reversal of a conviction based on an offense that ......
-
Montoya v. People
...than, the knowing homicide offense of second degree murder. People v. Marcy , 628 P.2d 69 (Colo. 1981) ; see also People v. Curtis , 627 P.2d 734, 736 (Colo. 1981) (applying Marcy and reversing the defendant's extreme indifference murder conviction); People v. Lee , 630 P.2d 583, 587–88 (Co......