v. Brooks ( 2020 )

The summaries of the Colorado Court of Appeals published opinions
constitute no part of the opinion of the division but have been prepared by
the division for the convenience of the reader. The summaries may not be
cited or relied upon as they are not the official language of the division.
Any discrepancy between the language in the summary and in the opinion
should be resolved in favor of the language in the opinion.
SUMMARY
February 13, 2020
2020COA25
No. 17CA1558, People v. Brooks — Criminal Law — Verdicts or
Findings — Special Interrogatories — Inconsistent Verdicts
The division applies for the first time a distinction suggested
by the Colorado Supreme Court in People v. Rail, 2019 CO 99, and
concludes that there is a difference in the analysis, and the
potential remedy, between a claim that a single verdict is internally
inconsistent or ambiguous and a claim that two distinct verdicts
are legally inconsistent.
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2020COA25
Court of Appeals No. 17CA1558
El Paso County District Court No. 14CR587
Honorable Lin Billings Vela, Judge
The People of the State of Colorado,
Plaintiff-Appellant and Cross-Appellee,
v.
Lorenzo Fondzel Brooks,
Defendant-Appellee and Cross-Appellant.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART,
AND CASE REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS
Division II
Opinion by JUDGE TOW
Bernard, C.J., and Terry, J., concur
Announced February 13, 2020
Daniel H. May, District Attorney, Tanya A. Karimi, Deputy District Attorney,
Colorado Springs, Colorado; Philip J. Weiser, Attorney General, Brenna A.
Brackett, Assistant Attorney General, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellant
and Cross-Appellee
Patrick R. Henson, Alternate Defense Counsel, Colorado, for Defendant-
Appellee and Cross-Appellant
¶1 The People appeal the trial court’s order granting the
defendant, Lorenzo Fondzel Brooks, a judgment of acquittal for first
degree burglary. Brooks cross-appeals the judgment of conviction
entered on a jury verdict finding him guilty of possession of a
controlled substance, third degree assault, first degree trespassing,
and two counts of menacing. In resolving this case, we apply for
the first time a distinction suggested by the Colorado Supreme
Court in Rail v. People, 2019 CO 99: that there is a difference in the
analysis of a claim that a single verdict is internally inconsistent
and a claim that two distinct verdicts are legally inconsistent.
Further, we consider the proper remedy for a verdict ambiguity
created by an inconsistent response to a special interrogatory.
Having done so, we conclude, albeit for slightly different reasons,
that the trial court correctly determined that the burglary verdict
was inconsistent with the interrogatory response, but the menacing
verdicts were not inconsistent. However, we further conclude that
the trial court imposed the wrong remedy related to the burglary
verdict. Thus, we affirm in part and reverse in part.
1
I. Background
¶2 According to the evidence presented at trial, M.U. heard a loud
noise one night that sounded like someone was coming in her front
door. She testified that she went into the living room and saw
Brooks trying to enter while holding a gun. She used the couch to
try and stop him from entering, at which time he dropped the gun.
She struck Brooks, then fell and struggled with him for the gun.
During the struggle, M.U.’s boyfriend, Q.L., woke up and also began
to struggle with Brooks. The gun discharged at some point during
the struggle. Brooks also bit M.U.’s finger.
¶3 The struggle continued until the police arrived. An officer
used a Taser on Brooks, who was on the floor and refused to get up.
Another officer then found a gun underneath Brooks. After
transporting Brooks in his police vehicle, an officer found a bag of
cocaine on the backseat.
2
¶4 Brooks was charged with first degree burglary, unlawful
possession of a controlled substance, two counts of menacing, third
degree assault, and first degree criminal trespass. 1
¶5 As relevant here, the jury instruction provided to the jury on
the first degree burglary charge listed the following elements:
(1) That the defendant,
(2) in the State of Colorado at or about the
date and place charged
(3) knowingly,
(4) entered unlawfully, or remained
unlawfully after a lawful or unlawful
entry,
(5) in a building or occupied structure
(6) with intent
(7) to commit therein the crime of Menacing
and
(8) in effecting entry or while in the building
or occupied structure or in immediate
flight from the building or occupied
structure
(9) the defendant or another participant in
the crime used a deadly weapon or
possessed and threatened the use of a
deadly weapon, namely a firearm.
1 Brooks was also charged with possession of a weapon by a
previous offender (POWPO). The trial on this count was bifurcated
from the other charges. After receiving the jury’s verdicts on the
other charges, including the finding that Brooks did not possess a
weapon during the burglary, the prosecution dismissed the POWPO
count.
3
¶6 The prosecution had charged first degree burglary as a crime
of violence under section 18-1.3-406, C.R.S. 2019. Accordingly, the
jury was also given a special interrogatory related to that charge:
Did the defendant use, or possess and
threaten the use of, a deadly weapon?
....
The defendant used, or possessed and
threatened the use of, a deadly weapon only if:
(1) the defendant used, or possessed and
threatened the use of, a deadly weapon,
(2) during the commission of, attempted
commission of, conspiracy to commit
First Degree Burglary, or in the
immediate flight therefrom.
¶7 The jury instruction for the menacing charges listed the
following elements:
(1) That the defendant
(2) in the State of Colorado, at or about the
date and place charged,
(3) knowingly,
(4) by any threat or physical action,
(5) placed or attempted to place another
person in fear of imminent serious bodily
injury,
(6) by use of a deadly weapon or any article
used or fashioned in a manner to cause a
person to reasonably believe that the
article was a deadly weapon,
(7) and was not acting in self-defense[.]
¶8 The jury found Brooks guilty of each of the charges. However,
in the first degree burglary special interrogatory, the jury found that
4
Brooks did not use, or threaten the use of, a deadly weapon during
the burglary.
¶9 Brooks moved for a judgment of acquittal on the burglary and
menacing convictions, asserting they were inconsistent. The court
found that the two verdicts were not inconsistent but acknowledged
that “the jury’s answers to interrogatories indicate the jury did not
find the prosecution proved that Mr. Brooks used or possessed a
firearm.” The court further observed that “in answering ‘no’ to the
interrogatory question whether the defendant used, or possessed a
deadly weapon in the commission of first degree burglary, the jury
negated element #9 of the first degree burglary instruction.” Then
the court entered a judgment of acquittal on the first degree
burglary count and sentenced Brooks to three years in the custody
of the Department of Corrections on the remaining charges.
¶ 10 The People appeal and Brooks cross-appeals, separately
contesting the trial court’s conclusions regarding the consistency of
the jury verdicts. Specifically, the People argue that the trial court
erred by concluding that the jury verdict for first degree burglary
was inconsistent with the special interrogatory. Brooks contends
that the trial court erred by concluding that the jury verdicts for two
5
counts of menacing were consistent with the special interrogatory
for burglary. We address, and reject, each contention in turn. The
People also contend that the trial court imposed the wrong remedy
for the inconsistency. On this point, we agree with the People.
II. Inconsistent Jury Verdicts: Legal Principles and Standard of
Review
A. Applicable Law
¶ 11 “A verdict in a criminal case should be certain and devoid of
ambiguity.” Yeager v. People, 170 Colo. 405, 410, 462 P.2d 487,
489 (1969). The verdict must “convey beyond a reasonable doubt
the meaning and intention of the jury.” People v. Durre, 690 P.2d
165, 173 (Colo. 1984) (quoting Yeager, 170 Colo. at 410, 462 P.2d
at 489).
¶ 12 But consistency in verdicts is not a necessity. People v. Frye,
898 P.2d 559, 571 (Colo. 1995). Inconsistent guilty and not guilty
verdicts based on the same conduct, for example, may be the result
of lenity toward the defendant by the jury, and thus do not warrant
reversal. United States v. Powell, 469 U.S. 57, 66 (1984).
¶ 13 However, the Colorado Supreme Court has recognized that in
some circumstances a verdict inconsistency may result in an infirm
6
conviction. For example, a defendant cannot be simultaneously
acquitted of a substantive offense and convicted of conspiracy to
commit that same offense where the evidence of the substantive
offense is the same as the evidence of the conspiracy. People v.
Robles, 160 Colo. 297, 301, 417 P.2d 232, 234 (1966).
¶ 14 Nor can a defendant be convicted of two distinct offenses
“when essential elements of [the] two guilty verdicts logically negate
each other.” People v. Delgado, 2019 CO 82, ¶ 12. In Delgado, the
defendant was convicted of both robbery and theft from person. Id.
at ¶ 2. The first conviction requires proof that the defendant
unlawfully took an item with force; the second conviction requires
proof that the defendant unlawfully took an item without force. Id.
Because the prosecution could not have proven beyond a
reasonable doubt that the defendant acted both with force and
without it, both convictions could not stand. Id. at ¶ 46.
¶ 15 Recently, our supreme court addressed the possibility of a
third scenario in which an inconsistent verdict problem may arise:
where the jury’s answer to a special interrogatory negates an
element of the substantive offense to which the special interrogatory
relates. Rail, 2019 CO 99. In Rail, the defendant was charged with
7
sexual assault on a child as a pattern of abuse and sexual assault
on a child by one in a position of trust. Id. at ¶ 3. The jury
convicted the defendant of sexual assault on a child. Id. at ¶ 11. In
addition, the jury indicated in a special interrogatory for the pattern
of abuse allegation that the prosecution had proven all of the
incidents described by the victim. Id. However, in a separate
unanimity special interrogatory that by its terms applied to both the
sexual assault on a child and the position of trust charges, the jury
indicated that the same incidents listed on the pattern interrogatory
were “[n]ot [p]roved.” Id.
¶ 16 Significantly, the court began its analysis by distinguishing
the scenario before it from cases in which two guilty verdicts were
mutually exclusive. Id. at ¶¶ 25-26. The court noted that the issue
before it was instead whether the jury’s unanimity interrogatory
responses nullified its verdict finding the defendant guilty of sexual
assault on a child as a pattern of abuse. Id. at ¶ 27. Ultimately,
however, the court did not resolve whether an inconsistent
interrogatory answer can create an ambiguity in a verdict such that
the verdict cannot stand.
8
¶ 17 Because the issue had not been preserved, the court reviewed
for plain error. Id. at ¶¶ 45-46. The supreme court assumed that
the trial court’s entry of the judgment of conviction was both
erroneous and obviously so but noted that any error was mitigated
by the fact that the jury was polled and each juror reaffirmed his or
her guilty verdict. Id. at ¶ 46. As a result, the court declined to
reverse the conviction. Id.
¶ 18 Nevertheless, our supreme court’s pointed distinction between
the scenario before it and a case involving two conflicting guilty
verdicts strongly suggests that the two claims are to be analyzed
differently.
B. Standard of Review
¶ 19 “Whether verdicts are mutually exclusive is a question of law.
Therefore, we review this issue de novo.” Delgado, ¶ 13. Though
the supreme court in Rail did not address the standard of review,
we note that the determination of whether a special interrogatory
response conflicts with the general verdict form to which it is
attached involves considerations similar to those presented by
mutually exclusive verdicts. In Kreiser v. People, 199 Colo. 20, 604
P.2d 27 (1979), the supreme court considered a challenge that a
9
verdict was ambiguous because its title did not accurately describe
the crime. Specifically, the verdict identified the crime of second
degree assault as “with intent to cause bodily injury” rather than
“with intent to cause serious bodily injury.” Id. at 21, 604 P.2d at
28. Though the supreme court did not specifically identify the
standard of review, it appears to have reviewed the issue de novo.
See id. at 24, 604 P.2d at 30 (“We have carefully examined the
authorities relied on by the People in support of the contention that
the verdict was not ambiguous. We have concluded, however, that
the verdict in this case is too uncertain to be legally sufficient.”).
¶ 20 We note that no court has explicitly identified the standard by
which we are to review this issue. However, because on the
circumstances before us the standard of review would make no
difference in the outcome, we assume without deciding that
whether a verdict is internally inconsistent and thus ambiguous is
also a question of law that we review de novo.
III. Brooks’s Inconsistent Verdict Claims
¶ 21 Unlike the defendant in Rail, Brooks challenged the verdicts as
inconsistent in the trial court. And his challenge was partially
successful, in that the trial court concluded that the ambiguous
10
first degree burglary verdict could not stand. Thus, resolution of
the People’s appeal requires us to address the issues that our
supreme court left unresolved in Rail: how is a claim of an
internally inconsistent, and thus arguably ambiguous, verdict
analyzed and, if the verdict is found to be inconsistent, what is the
remedy? Resolution of Brooks’s claim, on the other hand, requires
us to determine whether the burglary and menacing verdicts are
mutually exclusive.
A. The First Degree Burglary Verdict
1. The Jury’s Verdict Was Ambiguous
¶ 22 The jury was instructed that to convict Brooks of first degree
burglary it had to find that he used, or possessed and threatened to
use, a deadly weapon, namely a firearm, during the burglary. By
marking the verdict form guilty, the jury indicated it had done so.
But on the special interrogatory form affiliated with that verdict, the
jury explicitly found that he did not use, or possess and threaten to
use, a deadly weapon during the burglary.
¶ 23 The People argue that, read together, the verdict and the
interrogatory response merely mean that the jury rejected the
prosecution’s theory of the case that the deadly weapon used was a
11
firearm. But, the People assert, the jury could have concluded that
Brooks used a different deadly weapon, such as a body part. True,
the jury asked during deliberations whether “hands, feet, physical
presence[, or] size” could be a deadly weapon. But the People’s
argument ignores the specific language of the elemental instruction
given to the jury — that the jury must find that Brooks “used a
deadly weapon or possessed and threatened the use of a deadly
weapon, namely a firearm.” (Emphasis added.)
¶ 24 We cannot reconcile the jury’s finding on the guilty verdict
that Brooks committed the burglary with “a deadly weapon, namely
a firearm,” with the special interrogatory response that Brooks did
not commit the burglary with a deadly weapon. In other words, we
cannot say that the verdict expresses the jury’s meaning and intent
beyond a reasonable doubt. Durre, 690 P.2d at 173.
¶ 25 By negating an element of first degree burglary, the special
interrogatory response rendered the verdict on that charge
ambiguous. The verdict is therefore infirm and cannot stand.
Yeager, 170 Colo. at 410, 462 P.2d at 489.
12
2. Acquittal Was the Wrong Remedy
¶ 26 The People contend that, even if the verdict cannot stand, the
proper remedy was not acquittal, but entry of a conviction for
second degree burglary. We agree.
¶ 27 First, the court erred by entering a judgment of acquittal.
Even though the special interrogatory response negated the ninth
element of the first degree burglary offense, the jury did not acquit
Brooks; it found him guilty. Thus, acquittal was not appropriate.
See Delgado, ¶ 43 (holding acquittal on both charges is not the
proper remedy for inconsistent verdicts because the jury did not
actually acquit the defendant).
¶ 28 As Delgado makes clear, if this issue were analyzed in the
same way as a claim of mutually exclusive verdicts, the proper
remedy would be retrial. Id. at ¶ 45. But this is because in
entering the mutually exclusive verdicts, the jury essentially says
that the defendant did not commit crime one because he committed
crime two, and also that the defendant did not commit crime two
because he committed crime one. In other words, “it’s impossible to
know what exactly the jury intended.” Id. at ¶ 42. As the court
13
noted in Delgado, “[t]he only finding that we can be sure of is that
Delgado unlawfully took items.” Id.
¶ 29 Deciding on the remedy is where the distinction between a
single internally inconsistent verdict and two mutually exclusive
guilty verdicts is most significant. Unlike mutually exclusive
verdicts, when an inconsistency within a single verdict negates an
element, the remaining elements may nevertheless support a guilty
verdict. This distinction enables us to discern to a far greater
degree what the jury found.
¶ 30 As noted, the response to the special interrogatory negated the
ninth element of the burglary offense. However, there is no
inconsistency between the interrogatory and any other jury finding.
Thus, the jury unanimously, unambiguously, and beyond a
reasonable doubt, found the following: (1) that Brooks (2) in the
State of Colorado at or about the date and place charged (3)
knowingly (4) entered unlawfully, or remained unlawfully after a
lawful or unlawful entry, (5) in a building or occupied structure (6)
14
with intent (7) to commit therein the crime of menacing. 2 These
seven elements establish the crime of second degree burglary, a
class 4 felony. § 18-4-203, C.R.S. 2019. The jury also found that
Brooks had committed menacing. 3
¶ 31 Rather than acquittal or retrial, the proper remedy for an
ambiguous verdict in this circumstance is to enter a conviction to
the lesser offense encompassed by the unchallenged jury findings.
The supreme court has done just that in a different ambiguous
verdict scenario. In Kreiser, upon concluding that the verdict for
second degree assault was ambiguous, the supreme court
remanded the case with instructions to enter a judgment of
conviction for third degree assault. 199 Colo. at 24, 604 P.2d at 30.
¶ 32 Nor does entry of a conviction for the lesser burglary offense
raise due process concerns. In Lucero v. People, 2012 CO 7, after
2 The trial court concluded that the interrogatory response
necessarily contradicted, and thus negated, proof that Brooks
intended to commit felony menacing at the time of his trespass.
See Cooper v. People, 973 P.2d 1234, 1239 (Colo. 1999),
disapproved of on other grounds, Griego v. People, 19 P.3d 1 (Colo.
2007). Whether Brooks actually possessed a firearm at the time of
entry has no bearing on what his intent was upon entering the
home.
3 We address, and reject, Brooks’s challenge to the menacing
convictions below.
15
vacating a first degree burglary conviction due to insufficient proof
of a deadly weapon, the supreme court remanded for entry of
conviction and sentencing on the lesser included offense of second
degree burglary, despite the fact that the jury was apparently not
instructed on the lesser offense. Id. at ¶ 29. The court explained
that “[e]ven if the jury is not instructed as to a lesser included
offense, the defendant is on notice of the charge and has his chance
to defend against it.” Id.
¶ 33 Nor is Brooks’s protection against double jeopardy implicated.
[A]n appellate court, upon reversing a trial
court’s order granting a judgment of acquittal
notwithstanding a jury verdict of guilty, may
remand the case to the trial court with
directions to reinstate the jury verdict without
violating the constitutional prohibition against
twice placing the defendant in jeopardy for the
same offense.
People v. Brassfield, 652 P.2d 588, 593-94 (Colo. 1982) (citing
People v. Rivas, 197 Colo. 131, 591 P.2d 83 (1979)). “[T]he entry of
a judgment of conviction upon a jury verdict already returned does
not require the successive trial that the Double Jeopardy Clause
was designed to prevent.” Id. at 594. Here, given that Brooks’s
motion was the functional equivalent of a motion for judgment
16
notwithstanding the verdict, entry of a conviction on the lesser
offense than the one reflected in the guilty verdict is appropriate.
B. The Menacing Verdicts
¶ 34 Brooks contends that the special interrogatory response also
negates an element of his menacing convictions. But Brooks
misapprehends the nature of mutually exclusive verdicts.
¶ 35 As a threshold issue, we note that the verdicts are not
irreconcilable. The special interrogatory merely means that the jury
was not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Brooks used a
deadly weapon “during the commission of the burglary.” A burglary
occurs when an individual commits a trespass to a building and, at
that same time, the person has the intent to commit a crime inside.
Cooper v. People, 973 P.2d 1234, 1239 (Colo. 1999), disapproved of
on other grounds, Griego v. People, 19 P.3d 1 (Colo. 2007). Based on
the evidence at trial, the jury could well have determined that,
though Brooks did not have a weapon when he entered the home,
once inside he obtained the weapon from somewhere inside the
home and then threatened the victim with it.
¶ 36 In any event, as the court noted in Delgado, to be mutually
exclusive, two guilty verdicts must necessarily conflict in such a
17
way that an essential element of one crime necessarily negates
proof of an essential element of the other crime. Delgado, ¶¶ 2-3.
But the response to the special interrogatory regarding the burglary
did not negate any element of the offense of menacing, nor vice
versa. There is no irreconcilable conflict in the two crimes such
that proof of all of the elements of first degree burglary necessarily
means a failure to prove all of the elements of menacing.
¶ 37 Rather than pointing to two mutually exclusive guilty verdicts,
Brooks is actually attacking a perceived conflict between a not guilty
verdict on the crime of violence and the guilty verdict on the felony
menacing charges. But, again, a guilty verdict and a not guilty
verdict need not be consistent. Frye, 898 P.2d 559. Frye illustrates
why Brooks’s claim fails.
¶ 38 In Frye, the defendant was accused of sexually assaulting the
victim at gunpoint. Id. at 560-61. He was charged with, among
other things, first degree sexual assault and menacing with a
deadly weapon. Id. The jury was also instructed on the lesser
offense of second degree sexual assault. Id. at 564. The difference
between the two types of sexual assault was that the original charge
included as an element that the submission of the victim was
18
caused through the application of physical force or physical
violence, or by threat of imminent death, serious bodily injury,
extreme pain, or kidnapping, while the lesser offense did not
include this element. Id. at 563-64. The menacing charge also
required proof that the defendant placed or attempted to place
another person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury. Id. at
563.
¶ 39 The jury convicted the defendant of the lesser offense and also
convicted him of menacing with a deadly weapon. Id. at 564. As
the court in Delgado noted, the conviction for second degree sexual
assault “implied that [the defendant] was not guilty of first degree
sexual assault.” Delgado, ¶ 15. Nevertheless, though
acknowledging that the verdicts were factually in conflict, the court
let both convictions stand. Frye, 898 P.2d at 570-71.
¶ 40 Here, once the ambiguity in the burglary verdict is resolved,
the conviction for second degree burglary is essentially an implied
finding of not guilty on the first degree burglary charge. But just as
in Frye, any inconsistency there may be between the two
convictions is not fatal because such consistency is not required.
19
IV. Conclusion
¶ 41 The judgment of conviction entered on the menacing counts is
affirmed. The judgment of acquittal on the first degree burglary
count is reversed and the matter is remanded with instructions to
enter a judgment of conviction for second degree burglary, a class 4
felony, and for sentencing on that count.
CHIEF JUDGE BERNARD and JUDGE TERRY concur.
20