People v. Hart, No. 82SA72

Docket NºNo. 82SA72
Citation658 P.2d 857
Case DateFebruary 07, 1983
CourtSupreme Court of Colorado

Page 857

658 P.2d 857
The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Paul HART, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 82SA72.
Supreme Court of Colorado,
En Banc.
Feb. 7, 1983.
Rehearing Denied Feb. 28, 1983.

J.D. MacFarlane, Atty. Gen., Richard F. Hennessey, Deputy Atty. Gen., Mary J. Mullarkey, Sol. Gen., Jeffrey Weinman, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for plaintiff-appellee.

J. Gregory Walta, Colo. State Public Defender, Deborah S. Waldbaum, Barbara Blackman, Deputy State Public Defenders, Denver, for defendant-appellant.

DUBOFSKY, Justice.

The defendant, Paul Hart, appeals his conviction in the Larimer County district court for assault on a police officer, contending that the lack of a culpable mental state in section 18-3-203(1)(f), C.R.S.1973 (1978 Repl.Vol. 8) (1982 Supp.) 1 and the court's failure to instruct the jury on a culpable mental state deprived him of due

Page 858

process. 2 Because the requisite mental state may be implied from the statute and because the instructions which were given meet the test in People v. Mattas, 645 P.2d 254 (Colo.1982), we affirm the defendant's conviction.

The defendant was charged with two counts of second-degree assault on a police officer under section 18-3-203(1)(f) and section 18-3-203(1)(c), C.R.S.1973 (1978 Repl.Vol. 8) 3 for events arising out of a traffic stop in a residential area of Fort Collins on May 20, 1979. The police had to awaken Hart, a passenger in the car, in order to get him to produce his identification. Once aroused, Hart, who had been drinking heavily, was uncooperative, loud, and verbally abusive. The police placed him under protective custody arrest and took him to a holding cell. Hart became increasingly violent, biting one officer in the arm and kicking another in the shin. At trial, the defendant testified that he was very angry at being taken into custody and that both the kick and the bite were aimed at the officers in response to the arrest.

The district court gave the jury separate instructions detailing the elements of each of the two counts with which the defendant was charged. The jury was instructed that the elements of second-degree assault relevant to the charge under section 18-3-203(1)(f) were:

(1) While lawfully confined

(2) Violently applying physical force against a peace officer engaged in the performance of his duties, and

(3) Knowing or reasonably should know the victim is a peace officer engaged in the performance of his duties.

The court also separately advised the jury that a "culpable mental state is just as much an element of the crime as the act." 4 This instruction defined both "knowingly" and "specific intent," and linked the definition of specific intent to the charge under section 18-3-203(1)(c). The jury convicted the defendant on both counts, and the court sentenced him to concurrent terms of three to five years.

The defendant did not object to the lack of a specific culpable mental state in the statute or to the jury instructions at trial, nor did he raise either issue in his motion for a new trial. Thus, the flaws, if any,

Page 859

must amount to plain error in order to be raised for the first time on appeal. Crim.P. 52(b).

I.

The defendant first contends that his right to due process was violated by the lack of a designated culpable mental state in section 18-3-203(1)(f). Of the various sub-sections of section 18-3-203(1), only sub-section (f) does not contain an explicit statement of the culpable mental state which is required for a conviction. We have held that because a crime ordinarily requires the conjunction of an act and a culpable mental state, legislative silence on the element of intent in a criminal statute is not to be construed as an indication that no culpable mental state is required. People v. Bridges, 620 P.2d 1 (Colo.1980) (Bridges II ). Rather, the requisite mental state may be implied from the statute. Bridges II, supra; People v. Bridges, 199 Colo. 520, 612 P.2d 1110 (1980) (Bridges I ); People v. Washburn, 197 Colo. 419, 593 P.2d 962 (1979). Section 18-1-503(2), C.R.S.1973 (1978 Repl.Vol....

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 practice notes
  • Exotic Coins, Inc. v. Beacom, Nos. 82SA465
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court of Colorado
    • April 22, 1985
    ...be construed as an indication that no culpable mental state is required. People v. Moore, 674 P.2d 354, 358 (Colo.1984); People v. Hart, 658 P.2d 857, 859 (Colo.1983); People v. Bridges, 620 P.2d 1, 3 (Colo.1980). And where a statute is susceptible of different constructions, Page 948 only ......
  • People v. Schoondermark, No. 84SA99
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court of Colorado
    • May 6, 1985
    ...that section 18-3-203(1)(f) requires the application of force rather than a mere attempt to apply force. See, e.g., People v. Hart, 658 P.2d 857 (Colo.1983); People v. Wieder, 693 P.2d 1006 (Colo.App.1984); People v. Saiz, 660 P.2d 2 (Colo.App.1982); People v. Walker, 634 P.2d 1026 (Colo.Ap......
  • People v. Powell, No. 84SA510
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court of Colorado
    • March 31, 1986
    ...any error inured to the benefit of the defendant and cannot be the basis for a reversal Page 1103 of his conviction. See People v. Hart, 658 P.2d 857 The defendant further assails section 18-3-302 on the ground that the statute proscribes a seizure and carrying away of a victim that is mere......
  • People v. Lawrence, No. 99CA2431.
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals of Colorado
    • December 6, 2001
    ...as an indication that no culpable mental state is required. Rather, the mental state is to be inferred from the statute. People v. Hart, 658 P.2d 857 (Colo.1983); see People v. Moore, 674 P.2d 354 (Colo.1984)(concluding that "knowingly" implied by counterfeit controlled substances statute);......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
12 cases
  • Exotic Coins, Inc. v. Beacom, Nos. 82SA465
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court of Colorado
    • April 22, 1985
    ...be construed as an indication that no culpable mental state is required. People v. Moore, 674 P.2d 354, 358 (Colo.1984); People v. Hart, 658 P.2d 857, 859 (Colo.1983); People v. Bridges, 620 P.2d 1, 3 (Colo.1980). And where a statute is susceptible of different constructions, Page 948 only ......
  • People v. Schoondermark, No. 84SA99
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court of Colorado
    • May 6, 1985
    ...that section 18-3-203(1)(f) requires the application of force rather than a mere attempt to apply force. See, e.g., People v. Hart, 658 P.2d 857 (Colo.1983); People v. Wieder, 693 P.2d 1006 (Colo.App.1984); People v. Saiz, 660 P.2d 2 (Colo.App.1982); People v. Walker, 634 P.2d 1026 (Colo.Ap......
  • People v. Powell, No. 84SA510
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court of Colorado
    • March 31, 1986
    ...any error inured to the benefit of the defendant and cannot be the basis for a reversal Page 1103 of his conviction. See People v. Hart, 658 P.2d 857 The defendant further assails section 18-3-302 on the ground that the statute proscribes a seizure and carrying away of a victim that is mere......
  • People v. Lawrence, No. 99CA2431.
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals of Colorado
    • December 6, 2001
    ...as an indication that no culpable mental state is required. Rather, the mental state is to be inferred from the statute. People v. Hart, 658 P.2d 857 (Colo.1983); see People v. Moore, 674 P.2d 354 (Colo.1984)(concluding that "knowingly" implied by counterfeit controlled substances......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT