People v. Thompson, 81SA435
| Decision Date | 20 December 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 81SA435,81SA435 |
| Citation | 655 P.2d 416 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Caleb THOMPSON, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Robert J. Gallagher, Jr., Dist. Atty., Catherine P. Richardson, Deputy Dist. Atty., Littleton, for plaintiff-appellant.
J. Gregory Walta, Colo. State Public Defender, Denver, Shelley Gilman, Deputy State Public Defender, Littleton, for defendant-appellee.
The prosecution has appealed pursuant to section 16-12-102, C.R.S.1973 (1978 Repl. Vol. 8). Following a preliminary hearing, the district court dismissed charges against Caleb D. Thompson because the evidence was insufficient to establish probable cause. We remand to the district court for a determination of whether the evidence supported a charge of complicity which would cause the charges against the defendant to be reinstated. Section 18-1-603, C.R.S.1973 (1978 Repl. Vol. 8).
Although we may well have reached a different conclusion as to the sufficiency of the evidence, we have discouraged the use of section 16-12-102 as a means for reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence. We do not retreat from our statement in People v. Waggoner, 199 Colo. 450, 610 P.2d 106 (1980):
In our view, however, the district court overlooked or ignored section 18-1-603, C.R.S.1973 (1978 Repl. Vol. 8), which provides:
"A person is legally accountable as principal for the behavior of another constituting a criminal offense if, with the intent to promote or facilitate the commission of the offense, he aids, abets, or advises the other person in planning or committing the offense."
Accordingly, we remand to the district court for consideration of the complicity statute and for possible reinstatement of the charges. See People v. R.V., 635 P.2d 892 (Colo.1980); People v. Larson, 194 Colo. 338, 572 P.2d 815 (1977); People v. Pepper, 193 Colo. 505, 568 P.2d 446 (1977). The most cursory reading of the cases cited will indicate that it is not necessary to charge the crime of complicity separately. A review of the charges, together with a brief synopsis of the evidence, reflects the reason for our remand and directions to the district court.
An information was filed charging Brian Andrew Ash, Michael A. Ryan, Caleb D. Thompson, and Mark A. Kelley with robbery, assault, and criminal mischief. Specifically, the defendant, Caleb D. Thompson, was charged with assault in the first degree, section 18-3-202(1)(d), C.R.S.1973 (1978 Repl. Vol. 8), simple robbery, section 18-4-301, C.R.S.1973 (1978 Repl. Vol. 8), and criminal mischief, section 18-4-501, C.R.S.1973 (1978 Repl. Vol. 8). At the conclusion of the preliminary hearing the district court concluded that there was not probable cause to believe that the defendant, Caleb D. Thompson, committed the offenses with which he was charged. Four witnesses were called by the prosecution to establish that the defendant participated in the commission of the crimes of assault, robbery, and malicious mischief.
The uncontradicted facts before us are that Robert Johnson and Donald Patterson were sleeping in an automobile near Deckers, Colorado. Johnson testified that he was awakened at about 3:00 a.m. by the sound of rocks hitting his car windows. When the windows were broken Michael Ryan told Johnson to give him his money. When Johnson refused, he was dragged from his car and severely beaten by a number of individuals, including the defendant, Caleb Thompson, and the defendant, Michael Ryan. Johnson testified that when he was taken to a hospital in an ambulance he no longer had $30 that was in his possession prior to the attack. He also said that all of the windows in his car were smashed, that there was damage to the roof of the car, and that the headlights were broken. As a result of the assault, he suffered multiple facial lacerations, a bruised liver, fractured ribs, and a partially collapsed lung.
Donald Patterson, the other victim, confirmed Johnson's story. He said that he was awakened by rocks crashing through the windows...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Jimenez
...another person. Grissom v. People, 115 P.3d 1280, 1283 (Colo.2005); Palmer v. People, 964 P.2d 524, 528 (Colo. 1998); People v. Thompson, 655 P.2d 416, 418 (Colo.1982). Therefore, as our supreme court has held, it is not necessary to specifically charge complicity. Rodriguez, 914 P.2d at 27......
-
People v. Rodriguez
...information did not charge complicity. However, the prosecution need not separately charge the crime of complicity. People v. Thompson, 655 P.2d 416, 417-18 (Colo.1982).47 Rodriguez contends that the prosecution relied on complicity "in arguing for a guilty verdict on the murder and other c......
-
People v. Clark
...147 Complicity "is ... a theory by which a defendant becomes accountable for a criminal offense committed by another." People v. Thompson, 655 P.2d 416, 418 (Colo.1982). A person is guilty as a complicitor "if, with the intent to promote or facilitate the commission of the offense, he or sh......
-
Zuniga v. Falk
...mandatory sentencing for "any person convicted of a crime of violence."Complicity is not a substantive offense. People v. Thompson, 655 P.2d 416, 418 (Colo. 1982). Rather, it is a prosecutorial theory by which adefendant becomes accountable for a crime committed by another. Id.For the consp......
-
Disciplinary Opinions
...for the criminal offense committed by another. People v. Hart, 7787 P.2d 186, 189 (Colo. App. 1989), citing People v. Thompson, 655 P.2d 416 (Colo. 1982). The Complaint in this alleges that Kusick aided and abetted one or more notaries public to violate § 12-55-110(4), 4 C.R.S. (2002). That......