People v. Weinreich, 02CA0995.

Decision Date25 March 2004
Docket NumberNo. 02CA0995.,02CA0995.
Citation98 P.3d 920
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Peter Karl WEINREICH, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtColorado Court of Appeals

Ken Salazar, Attorney General, Cheryl Hone, Assistant Attorney General, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Robert T. Fishman, Denver, Colorado, for Defendant-Appellant.

Opinion by Judge ROY.

Defendant, Peter K. Weinreich, appeals the judgment of conviction entered on jury verdicts finding him guilty of reckless child abuse resulting in death, careless driving resulting in death, criminally negligent homicide, child abuse resulting in injury, driving while ability impaired, and a traffic-related offense. We reverse and remand for a new trial on the charge of reckless child abuse resulting in death and otherwise affirm.

On the evening of July 29, 2001, defendant was driving east on a two-lane road with the sun setting behind him. His six-year old twin daughters were riding in his lap without seat belts. Abiding by the speed limit, defendant approached from behind an eastbound vehicle that was moving slowly and towing a flatbed trailer. The eastbound vehicle, according to its driver, was signaling a left turn. Defendant noticed that the eastbound vehicle was slowing down but did not observe the turn signal. He decided to pass the eastbound vehicle and pulled into the left lane. The eastbound vehicle began turning left in front of defendant, and defendant swerved to avoid a collision. Defendant brushed the other vehicle, and defendant's car began spinning out of control and then rolled two or three times.

Defendant and one daughter suffered only minor injuries. The other daughter was crushed by the car and died instantly. The back seat of the car where both children should have been riding under restraint was virtually undamaged.

About an hour and a half after the accident, medical personnel drew blood from defendant. The blood was found to have a blood alcohol content (BAC) of .086. An hour later, his BAC was similarly determined to be .059.

Defendant was charged with reckless child abuse resulting in death, under-the-influence vehicular homicide, reckless vehicular homicide, manslaughter, child abuse resulting in injury, driving under the influence of alcohol, driving with an excessive blood alcohol content, and other traffic-related offenses.

The jury found defendant guilty as indicated above. He was sentenced to a total of twenty-six years in prison with reckless child abuse as the measuring sentence.

I.

Defendant contends that the trial court erred in permitting a constructive amendment of the charge of child abuse resulting in death during trial following the close of evidence. We agree.

In the information, defendant was charged with Child Abuse Resulting in Death:

On or about July 29, 2001, [defendant] did unlawfully, feloniously, knowingly, and recklessly cause an injury to the life and health of [daughter], a child less than sixteen years of age, resulting in the death of [daughter]; In violation of [§] 18-6-401(1) and (7)(a)(I) [C.R.S.2003].

The corresponding jury instruction, following CJI Crim. 22:04 (1983), stated, in relevant part:

The elements of the crime of Child Abuse Resulting in Death—Recklessly are:
1. That the defendant,
2. in the State of Colorado, at or about the date and place charged,
3. recklessly,
4. permitted a child under the age of sixteen to be unreasonably placed in a situation that may have endangered the child's life or health
5. which resulted in the death of the child.

(Emphasis added.)

On appeal, defendant argues that this jury instruction constructively amended the count in the information because the instruction substituted an element, "permitted a child under the age of sixteen to be unreasonably placed in a situation that may have endangered the child's life or health," for "cause[d] an injury to the life and health of ... a child less than sixteen years of age, resulting in the death."

Because defendant did not object to the instruction, review is conducted under the plain error standard. The plain error standard requires the defendant to show that the amendment affected a substantial right and that the record reveals a reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the defendant's conviction. People v. Lawrence, 55 P.3d 155 (Colo.App.2001).

Crim. P. 7(e) states, in relevant part: "[T]he court may permit [an information] to be amended as to form at any time before the verdict ... if no additional or different offense is charged and if substantial rights of the defendant are not prejudiced." An information can be amended as to form during trial, but "amendments that `effectively subject a defendant to the risk of conviction for an offense that was not originally charged'" are prohibited. People v. Rodriguez, 914 P.2d 230, 257 (Colo.1996)(quoting United States v. Mosley, 965 F.2d 906, 915 (10th Cir.1992)); People v. Jefferson, 934 P.2d 870 (Colo.App.1996).

A statutory citation is an immaterial part of the information; therefore, the language of the information charging an offense is the "controlling factor in determining whether the amendment was permissible after trial." People v. Johnson, 644 P.2d 34, 37 (Colo.App.1980).

However, to properly assess whether the jury instruction constructively amended the information, we must look at § 18-6-401, C.R.S.2003, which states, in relevant part:

(1)(a) A person commits child abuse if such person causes an injury to a child's life or health, or permits a child to be unreasonably placed in a situation that poses a threat of injury to the child's life or health, or engages in a continued pattern of conduct that results in malnourishment, lack of proper medical care, cruel punishment, mistreatment, or an accumulation of injuries that ultimately results in the death of a child or serious bodily injury to a child.
....
(7)(a) Where death or injury results, the following shall apply:
(I) When a person acts knowingly or recklessly and the child abuse results in death to the child, it is a class 2 felony except as provided in paragraph (c) of this subsection (7).

(Emphasis added.)

Section 18-6-401(1)(a) states three distinct forms of, or ways to commit, child abuse. The first is "causes an injury to a child's life or health." The second is "permits a child to be unreasonably placed in a situation that poses a threat of injury to the child's life or health." The third is "engages in a continued pattern of conduct that results in malnourishment, lack of proper medical care, cruel punishment, mistreatment, or an accumulation of injuries that ultimately results in the death of a child or serious bodily injury to a child." See People v. Pineda, 40 P.3d 60, 65 (Colo.App.2001)(suggesting this conclusion).

We conclude that the instruction delivered by the trial court constructively amended the count of reckless child abuse resulting in death. The...

To continue reading

Request your trial
32 cases
  • The People Of The State Of Colo. v. Tillery
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals
    • November 19, 2009
    ...80 P.3d 831, 839 (Colo.App.2003). Prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument rarely constitutes plain error. People v. Weinreich, 98 P.3d 920, 924 (Colo.App.2004), aff'd, 119 P.3d 1073 (Colo.2005). “[L]ack of an objection is a factor to be considered in examining the impact of a prosecuto......
  • People v. Dunlap
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • November 7, 2005
    ... ... Weinreich, ... Page 801 ... 98 P.3d 920, 2004 WL 583617 (Colo.App. No. 02CA0995, Mar. 25, 2004) ...         While addressing the jury pool ... ...
  • Russell v. State, CR–10–1910
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • May 29, 2015
    ...231 P.3d 36, 44 (Colo.App.2009). "Prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument rarely constitutes plain error." People v. Weinreich, 98 P.3d 920, 924 (Colo.App.2004). See also Gonzales v. State, 685 S.W.2d 47, 49 (Tex.Crim.App.1985) ("Appellate courts rarely reverse a conviction due to an i......
  • Self v. Milyard
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Colorado
    • February 2, 2012
    ...of the judgment of conviction. Prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument rarely constitutes plain error. People v. Weinreich, 98 P.3d 920, 924 (Colo. App. 2004), aff'd, 119 P.3d 1073 (Colo. 2005).Self objects to the prosecutor's statements in opening argument that the victim was seven mo......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
  • ARTICLE 6
    • United States
    • Colorado Bar Association C.R.S. on Family and Juvenile Law (2022 ed.) (CBA) Title 18 Criminal Code
    • Invalid date
    ...permitting a child to be unreasonably placed in a situation that may have endangered the child's life or health. People v. Weinreich, 98 P.3d 920 (Colo. App. 2004), aff'd, 119 P.3d 1073 (Colo. 2005). Because the amendment prejudiced defendant's substantial rights, the error rises to plain e......
  • ARTICLE 6 OFFENSES INVOLVING THE FAMILY RELATIONS
    • United States
    • Colorado Bar Association C.R.S. on Family and Juvenile Law (CBA) Title 18 Criminal Code
    • Invalid date
    ...permitting a child to be unreasonably placed in a situation that may have endangered the child's life or health. People v. Weinreich, 98 P.3d 920 (Colo. App. 2004), aff'd, 119 P.3d 1073 (Colo. 2005). Because the amendment prejudiced defendant's substantial rights, the error rises to plain e......
  • Chapter 17 - § 17.2 OBJECTIONS
    • United States
    • Colorado Bar Association Colorado Courtroom Handbook for Civil Trials (2022 ed.) (CBA) Chapter 17 Closing Argument
    • Invalid date
    ...must so undermine the fundamental fairness of the trial as to cast serious doubt on the reliability of the outcome. People v. Weinreich, 98 P.3d 920, 924 (Colo. App. 2004), aff'd, 119 P.3d 1073 (Colo. 2005). ➢ Object and Request Curative Instruction. It was in the discretion of the trial co......
  • Chapter 17 - § 17.2 • OBJECTIONS
    • United States
    • Colorado Bar Association Colorado Courtroom Handbook for Civil Trials (CBA) Chapter 17 Closing Argument
    • Invalid date
    ...must so undermine the fundamental fairness of the trial as to cast serious doubt on the reliability of the outcome. People v. Weinreich, 98 P.3d 920, 924 (Colo. App. 2004), aff'd, 119 P.3d 1073 (Colo. 2005). ➢ Object and Request Curative Instruction. It was in the discretion of the trial co......

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