People v. Welborne

COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2017COA105

Court of Appeals No. 14CA2242
Larimer County District Court No. 13CR1167
Honorable Julie K. Field, Judge

The People of the State of Colorado,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

Christopher Wesley Welborne,

Defendant-Appellant.

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED

Division V
Opinion by JUDGE NAVARRO
Hawthorne and Dunn, JJ., concur

Announced August 10, 2017

Cynthia H. Coffman, Attorney General, Brock J. Swanson, Assistant Attorney
General, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Nicole M. Mooney, Alternate Defense Counsel, Denver, Colorado, for Defendant-
Appellant
¶1 Defendant, Christopher Wesley Welborne, appeals the

judgment of conviction entered on jury verdicts finding him guilty of

first degree arson, criminal mischief, theft, and attempted theft. We

affirm. In doing so, we hold — for the first time in a reported

decision — that criminal mischief is not an included offense of first

degree arson. See infra Part V.

I. Factual and Procedural History

¶2 The prosecution alleged that Welborne and his mother, Kellie

Lawson, set fire to the house in which they lived and then filed false

insurance claims based on the fire. Welborne and Lawson were

tried together, and the prosecution presented evidence of the

following.

¶3 Welborne rented a house with Lawson, his then girlfriend J.K.,

and other family members. In April 2012, Welborne and Lawson

purchased renters insurance and automobile insurance policies.

The renters insurance covered losses up to $350,000. The

insurance agent had never seen a renters policy with such high

coverage.

¶4 In August 2012, the insurance company notified Welborne and

Lawson that it did not plan to renew the renters policy upon

1
 expiration in October 2012 because an adjustor had seen a large

snake on the premises, contrary to a policy provision. The

insurance agent was also suspicious of Welborne and Lawson due

to the agent’s past interactions with them,1 and the agent asked a

company underwriter if the company could cancel their policy

before the expiration date. The agent told the underwriter he feared

that, if the company did not cancel the policy, the “house is going to

burn down.” But the policy remained in place.

¶5 On August 27, 2012, the house in which Welborne and

Lawson lived was set on fire. On that day, the occupants went on a

picnic shortly before the fire started. Multiple sources of ignition

were found, and all accidental causes were eliminated. Experts

concluded that someone intentionally started the fire with an open-

flame source that was removed from the scene when the fire

started.

¶6 Before the day of the fire, Lawson said multiple times in front

of many people that she wished the house would burn down so the

family could start again. J.K. observed Lawson searching the

1 We discuss some of these interactions in Part II of this opinion.

2
 Internet to learn methods by which a fire could start in a home

without someone being there.

¶7 Welborne used “pyroman876” as an online username and as

part of his e-mail address, and he chose faces created out of flames

for his profile picture on Facebook. J.K. heard Welborne agree that

burning down the house would be a good idea, and she heard him

talking with Lawson about how a fire could be started by placing a

scarf soaked in rubbing alcohol on an over-wattage bulb in a lamp.

J.K. was so concerned about those statements that she discussed

them with her mother. Her mother told J.K.’s sister about those

concerns; after the fire, the sister advised authorities that the fire

had been set intentionally.

¶8 Shortly after the fire, Welborne and Lawson filed an insurance

claim based on allegedly destroyed personal items. They created a

140-page list of over 2800 items, seeking reimbursement for

$443,626. An inventory of the house, however, revealed only 816

items, valued at $102,358. For example, although Welborne

claimed that the fire had destroyed an electric wheelchair, fire

investigators found the chair in a neighbor’s garage. And

3
 investigators could not find some allegedly burned computers; their

remnants should have been in the house.

¶9 J.K. was with Welborne when he completed the insurance

claim. She saw him list items that he had never possessed or that

had not been lost, including a laptop that he had actually taken to

the picnic. When she questioned him, he said that he deserved a

new laptop.

¶ 10 After living with Welborne in a hotel for a few months, J.K.

moved to California. He visited her. She advised him that, if he

wished to salvage their relationship, he must list his lies to her. On

this list, Welborne admitted that he and his mother had set the fire.

He also admitted that earlier insurance claims had been fraudulent.

He then burned the list, telling J.K. that he would not let her use it

as evidence against him.

¶ 11 Welborne claimed that the house had many electrical

problems, but J.K. and the homeowner said they were aware only of

a problem with a dimmer switch. Investigators eliminated the

electrical system as the cause of the fire.

¶ 12 Lawson also denied starting the fire. She volunteered that she

had spilled rubbing alcohol on her bedroom carpet, used rags to

4
 clean it up, and thrown the rags in a corner by a lamp. The lamp

had a 200-watt bulb, far exceeding the recommended maximum of

60 watts. But investigators eliminated the alcohol-soaked rags

thrown on the base of the lamp as the fire’s cause.

¶ 13 The fire caused $285,224 of damage to the house. Before

ultimately denying their claim, the insurance company paid

Welborne and Lawson $72,468 for temporary living expenses and

for some of the allegedly lost personal items.

¶ 14 The jury convicted Welborne and Lawson as charged. The trial

court sentenced Welborne to six years in prison for arson, six years

for criminal mischief, six years for attempted theft, and eight years

for theft — all to be served concurrently. He directly appeals the

judgment. (Lawson is not a party to this appeal.)

II. Earlier Insurance Claims

¶ 15 Welborne contends that the trial court erred by admitting

evidence of his earlier insurance claims to the same company. He

is mistaken.

A. Relevant Factual and Procedural History

¶ 16 Around August 2011, Welborne and Lawson purchased

insurance policies for multiple vehicles and a renters insurance

5
 policy. Around December 2011, Welborne and Lawson filed an

insurance claim alleging that many items had been stolen from

their house. Police, however, could not find any signs of forced

entry or any other evidence of a burglary. Welborne and Lawson

could not provide receipts or other proof to support some claims.

Lawson repeatedly increased the alleged value of the items taken

each time she talked to the insurance agent. Still, the insurance

company paid them approximately $30,000. Welborne told J.K.

that the items had not been stolen and that he and Lawson had

committed insurance fraud.

¶ 17 Later, the family’s van was found crashed in a field with the

keys in the ignition. Welborne and Lawson claimed that the van

had been stolen, and they filed an insurance claim. According to

the investigating officer, the van was worth $2324. Lawson

asserted that the value should be increased because of recent work

on the van, but she could not provide proof of such work. Yet, the

insurance company paid them approximately $6000. Welborne told

J.K. that the van had not been stolen and that he and Lawson had

crashed it so they could get a new one.

6
¶ 18 In July 2012, Lawson asserted that the house had been

burglarized again and the burglar had stolen a samurai sword.

J.K., however, had never seen a sword in the house. Once again,

police did not find signs of forced entry or other evidence of a

burglary. The insurance agent advised Lawson that the insurance

company would look hard at another questionable claim. Welborne

and Lawson ultimately dropped this claim.

¶ 19 The prosecutor moved to admit evidence of these prior

insurance claims under CRE 404(b) and as res gestae evidence.

The prosecutor argued that this evidence showed motive or intent,

lack of accident or mistake, and common plan and preparation.

The trial court agreed and admitted the evidence at trial, with

limiting instructions.

B. Standard of Review

¶ 20 A trial court has “substantial discretion when deciding

whether to admit evidence of other acts.” People v. Jones, 2013 CO

59, ¶ 11 (citation omitted). We will not disturb the court’s ruling

unless it is manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable, or unfair. People v.

Rath, 44 P.3d 1033, 1043 (Colo. 2002). The parties agree that

Welborne preserved this issue.

7
 C. Analysis

¶ 21 Rule 404(b) provides that, although evidence of other acts is

not admissible if its relevance depends entirely on the inference that

the actor has a bad character and acted in conformity with that

character, such evidence may be admissible for other purposes.

See CRE 404(b) (listing, for example, proof of motive, intent,

preparation, plan, and absence of mistake or accident); see also

Jones, ¶ 12. To assess whether evidence satisfies Rule 404(b), a

trial court must apply the four-part test articulated in People v.

Spoto, 795 P.2d 1314, 1318 (Colo. 1990). This test allows

admission of the evidence if (1) it relates to a material fact; (2) it is

logically relevant to showing that fact; (3) the logical relevance is

independent of the inference that the defendant committed the

crime charged because of the likelihood that he acted in conformity

with his bad character; and (4) the probative value is not

substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Id.; see

CRE 403.

¶ 22 Welborne contends that the trial court abused its discretion

because the evidence of his prior insurance claims did not relate to

a material fact, was not logically relevant to the charges, and

8
 therefore was not probative of anything other than to show his bad

character. As to these first three Spoto prongs, he argues only that

“[w]hether the defendants made false insurance claims [was] not

material to whether the defendants intentionally set the fire” and

“[n]one of the charges in this case were related to fraud.”

¶ 23 We disagree because the attempted theft and theft charges

were grounded in Welborne’s false insurance claims following the

fire. The prosecution had to prove that he knowingly took a

substantial step toward obtaining and actually obtained insurance

money by deception, and that he intended to permanently deprive

the insurance company of the money. §§ 18-2-101(1),

18-4-401(1)(a), C.R.S. 2016. According to the prosecution,

Welborne falsely claimed that certain personal property was

destroyed in the fire in order to deceive the insurance company into

paying him money under the renters policy.

¶ 24 So, the prior false insurance claims involving the same

company related to a material fact and were logically relevant to the

charges. See Yusem v. People, 210 P.3d 458, 464 (Colo. 2009)

(recognizing that whether the defendant’s actions were mistaken or

purposeful was related to the defendant’s mental state); Rath, 44

9
 P.3d at 1043 (recognizing that other-act evidence shared common

elements with charged offenses that tended to show the charged

acts were “directed or purposive rather than coincidental”); People v.

Delgado, 890 P.2d 141, 143 (Colo. App. 1994) (noting that a

common plan can be shown by acts that have “a nexus or

relationship with each other” and “it is not necessary that there be

any substantial similarity between the acts”).

¶ 25 For similar reasons, the other-act evidence had probative

value outside of any improper inference. “Because all evidence of

other bad acts could support a propensity inference, Spoto ‘does not

demand the absence of the inference’ but ‘merely requires that the

proffered evidence be logically relevant independent of that

inference.’” People v. McBride, 228 P.3d 216, 227 (Colo. App. 2009)

(citation omitted). The evidence here was not relevant merely to

prove Welborne’s character but also to show a common plan and

preparation, lack of accident or mistake, and his motive and intent.

See Rath, 44 P.3d at 1041 (“The inference relied on arises not from

the criminal character of the accused but from the demonstration of

his pattern of using a particular technique to accomplish a

particular end.”).

10
¶ 26 As to Spoto’s fourth prong, because Rule 403 strongly favors

the admission of relevant evidence, we must afford other-act

evidence the maximum probative value attributable to it by a

reasonable fact finder and the minimum unfair prejudice to be

reasonably expected. Rath, 44 P.3d at 1043. Evidence that

strengthens the prosecution’s case necessarily poses some

disadvantage to the accused. People v. Garner, 806 P.2d 366, 375

(Colo. 1991). But unfair prejudice does not result from the

evidence’s legitimate probative force. Rath, 44 P.3d at 1043.

¶ 27 Evidence of Welborne’s false but fruitful insurance claims was

highly probative of whether he acted to deceive the same insurance

company with the intent to permanently deprive it of money. And

the trial court repeatedly instructed the jury on the limited

purposes of the evidence, which mitigated the potential for unfair

prejudice because we assume the jury heeded the instructions

absent contrary signs. People v. Garcia, 2012 COA 79, ¶ 20.

¶ 28 As a result, the trial court did not abuse its broad discretion.

11
 III. Welborne’s California Theft Conviction

¶ 29 Welborne contends that the trial court committed reversible

error by permitting the prosecutor to impeach him with his

California theft conviction. We disagree.

A. Relevant History

¶ 30 Welborne elected to testify at trial. Before cross-examination,

the prosecutor announced the intent to impeach Welborne with a

California felony theft conviction, pursuant to section 13-90-101,

C.R.S. 2016. Defense counsel acknowledged that Welborne had

been convicted of felony theft in California, but counsel provided

documents showing that Welborne had successfully petitioned a

California court to reduce the conviction to a misdemeanor

pursuant to California law. Defense counsel argued that the

conviction could not be used to impeach Welborne because it was

no longer a felony.

¶ 31 The trial court agreed that the conviction was no longer a

felony. Relying on People v. Segovia, 196 P.3d 1126, 1132 (Colo.

2008), however, the court found the conviction admissible to

impeach Welborne’s credibility under CRE 608(b) because theft is

probative of truthfulness or dishonesty.

12
¶ 32 In front of the jury, the prosecutor asked Welborne one

question regarding the earlier offense: “And you have a prior

misdemeanor theft conviction in California, don’t you?” Welborne

answered, “Fourteen years ago.” The trial court instructed the jury

to consider this evidence only to assess Welborne’s credibility.

B. Standard of Review

¶ 33 As noted, trial courts possess considerable discretion in

deciding evidentiary matters. Segovia, 196 P.3d at 1129. Because

Welborne objected to admission of the evidence on

non-constitutional grounds, we review the alleged error for

harmlessness. Yusem, 210 P.3d at 469; see also People v. Kraemer,

795 P.2d 1371, 1377 (Colo. App. 1990) (analyzing erroneous

admission of CRE 608(b) evidence for harmlessness).

C. Analysis

¶ 34 Rule 608(b) permits cross-examination into specific instances

of conduct that are probative of a witness’s character for

truthfulness or untruthfulness. Only the underlying circumstances

surrounding the conduct — not the fact of a criminal conviction

itself — are admissible under the rule. See Segovia, 196 P.3d at

13
 1132; People v. Drake, 748 P.2d 1237, 1246 (Colo. 1988); People v.

Garcia, 17 P.3d 820, 829 (Colo. App. 2000).

¶ 35 The trial court acted well within its discretion in admitting

evidence of Welborne’s prior theft offense under Rule 608(b)

because “theft is probative of truthfulness or dishonesty.” Segovia,

196 P.3d at 1132. Welborne asks us to “re-examine” the supreme

court’s holding in Segovia, but we lack such authority. See People

v. Al-Turki, 2017 COA 39, ¶ 12 n.2. Also, contrary to his claim that

the trial court admitted the evidence “carte blanche” (i.e., without

recognizing its discretion to either admit or exclude the evidence),

the court explicitly recognized its discretion to make this decision.

¶ 36 But Welborne is right that the trial court should not have

permitted the prosecutor to elicit the fact of his conviction because

only the facts underlying it were admissible. See, e.g., Segovia, 196

P.3d at 1132. No reasonable probability exists, however, that this

error prejudiced him. As defense counsel recognized, the

underlying facts of his California theft supported a conviction for a

felony offense. The jury heard, however, only the fact of a

misdemeanor conviction, not the facts of the felony-level offense.

Hence, the jury received evidence less prejudicial to Welborne,

14
 perhaps, than Rule 608 permits. Further, the entire inquiry into

the earlier offense was limited to a single question during a lengthy

trial, and the court instructed the jury to consider the evidence for a

limited purpose only. Finally, the evidence of Welborne’s guilt was

profuse.

¶ 37 Consequently, the error in admitting the fact of the

misdemeanor conviction was surely harmless. See People v. Casias,

2012 COA 117, ¶ 68 (concluding that improperly admitted other-act

evidence was harmless where it did not play a significant role in the

case and the volume of properly admitted evidence dwarfed the

improperly admitted evidence).2 Because the trial court’s admission

2 To the extent Welborne contends — for the first time on appeal —
that the trial court’s ruling burdened his “constitutional right to
testify,” we do not detect plain error. The ruling did not preclude
him from testifying, and he testified freely. See also People v.
Henry, 195 Colo. 309, 315, 578 P.2d 1041, 1045 (1978) (holding
that permitting the prosecution to impeach a defendant with prior
convictions does not impermissibly burden his right to testify).
Further, while Welborne notes that he was not expressly advised
that he could be impeached under CRE 608(b) with the
circumstances of a misdemeanor conviction, he does not assert that
he would have made a different decision about whether to testify if
he had been so advised. Cf. People v. Emert, 240 P.3d 514, 518-19
(Colo. App. 2010) (recognizing that, when a defendant is
misinformed by the trial court about the consequences of his
decision to testify, he may obtain relief only if he demonstrates
detrimental reliance on the misleading advisement).

15
 of the evidence under CRE 608(b) does not require reversal, we need

not address the People’s argument that Welborne’s California

conviction remained a felony for purposes of section 13-90-101.

IV. Welborne’s Proposed Impeachment Witness

¶ 38 According to Welborne, the trial court erred by barring him

from calling a witness, G.S., to impeach the testimony of J.K., his

former girlfriend. The record does not reveal reversible error.

A. Relevant Factual and Procedural History

¶ 39 The trial court ordered the parties to disclose witnesses well

before trial. The defense did not disclose G.S.

¶ 40 During J.K.’s testimony, defense counsel did not ask her

about G.S. Counsel did not object to releasing J.K. from her

subpoena after her testimony, and she flew home to California the

next day as planned.

¶ 41 Two days after J.K.’s testimony, defense counsel requested

permission to call G.S. to impeach J.K. Counsel represented that

G.S. had been present for the California meeting in which,

according to J.K., Welborne had confessed to setting the fire.

Counsel said that G.S. would testify “regarding what she observed

at the meeting” as well as to “some things [J.K.] said.” Counsel

16
 explained that G.S. would not testify to “new unknown information”

and that Welborne would “probably address the same items” in his

testimony. Counsel conceded that he had not disclosed G.S. to the

prosecution. He also admitted that he had received the

prosecution’s disclosures about J.K.’s testimony well before trial.

While defense counsel suggested that the prosecution’s latest

synopsis of J.K.’s expected testimony (provided at the start of trial)

“added additional information about” her, defense counsel did not

identify any such new information.

¶ 42 The prosecutor objected, arguing that the endorsement was

untimely, J.K.’s testimony had been known to the defense since the

charges were filed, J.K. could not be recalled to respond to G.S.’s

testimony because J.K. had left the state, and the prosecution could

have extended J.K.’s stay if the defense had revealed G.S. earlier.

The prosecutor also voiced concern that (1) G.S.’s testimony would

be hearsay if she testified about conversations she had overheard

between J.K. and Welborne; and (2) the defense had not laid a

proper foundation to impeach J.K.’s testimony under section

16-10-201, C.R.S. 2016, or CRE 613. Defense counsel did not

respond to these hearsay and foundational concerns.

17
¶ 43 The trial court decided that G.S. could not testify because the

defense had not timely disclosed her per Crim. P. 16(II)(c) and the

pretrial order, and the defense had not shown good cause for failing

to disclose her earlier — especially given that the prosecution had

disclosed J.K.’s testimony long before trial. The court also

expressed its “very serious concern” about whether G.S.’s testimony

would be admissible in light of its apparent hearsay nature and the

absence of a proper foundation.

B. Analysis

¶ 44 Welborne maintains that the trial court erred by excluding

G.S.’s testimony because the defense did not violate any rule and

the court did not adequately consider the factors outlined in People

v. Pronovost, 773 P.2d 555 (Colo. 1989). The People answer that

Welborne did not provide an offer of proof sufficient to permit us to

reverse the court’s ruling. The People are right.

¶ 45 Under CRE 103(a), “error may not be predicated upon a ruling

that excludes evidence unless a substantial right of the proponent

is affected and the substance of the evidence is made known to the

court by offer of proof or is apparent from the context within which

questions were asked.” People v. Saiz, 32 P.3d 441, 446-47 (Colo.

18
 2001). “This offer of proof must demonstrate that evidence is

admissible as well as relevant to the issues in the case.” Melton v.

Larrabee, 832 P.2d 1069, 1071 (Colo. App. 1992). “The offer must

sufficiently apprise the trial court of the nature and substance of

the testimony to enable it to exercise its discretion pursuant to the

rules of evidence, and it must establish a basis in the record for

appellate review of the trial court’s ultimate ruling.” Saiz, 32 P.3d

at 447.

¶ 46 Defense counsel, despite the trial court’s requests for more

detail, offered only that G.S. was present during the California

meeting between J.K. and Welborne and that G.S. would “impeach

some of the testimony put forth by J.K.” Counsel did not identify

which parts of J.K.’s testimony G.S. would impeach. For instance,

counsel did not assert that G.S. would contradict J.K.’s testimony

that Welborne had confessed to setting the fire or to filing false

insurance claims. Nor did defense counsel explain how the defense

could overcome the hearsay and foundational concerns flagged by

the prosecutor and shared by the court. Instead, defense counsel

said that G.S.’s testimony would be cumulative of Welborne’s

expected testimony (although counsel did not elaborate).

19
¶ 47 Arguably, this offer of proof was so limited as to justify the

trial court’s ruling on the basis that the offer did not satisfy CRE

103(a)(2) (i.e., the substance of the evidence was not adequately

made known to the court). In any event, the sparse offer of proof

does not show that the court’s ruling affected a “substantial right of

[a] party.” CRE 103(a); see Saiz, 32 P.3d at 447-48 (concluding that

the trial court properly excluded videotaped statement where the

offer of proof was relatively limited in nature, solely for

impeachment, and not alleged to be different or more probative

than other related testimony); id. at 448 (“A trial court also cannot

be considered to have abused its discretion in excluding logically

relevant evidence as needlessly cumulative unless its decision,

under the circumstances, was manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable,

or unfair.”); cf. People v. Brown, 2014 COA 155M-2, ¶ 6 (“[A]

defendant’s right to present a defense is violated ‘only where the

defendant was denied virtually his only means of effectively testing

significant prosecution evidence.’”) (alteration and citation omitted).

For the same reason, we cannot conclude that the court’s ruling

prejudiced Welborne even if we assume (without deciding) that

constitutional harmless error analysis applies. See Hagos v. People,

20
 2012 CO 63, ¶ 11 (describing review of errors of constitutional

dimension).

¶ 48 As discussed, the offer of proof did not show that G.S.’s

testimony was admissible or that she would impeach J.K.’s

testimony that Welborne had confessed to starting the fire. See

Saiz, 32 P.3d at 449 (explaining that, where “the defense never

specified the statements that would appear on the tape or asked the

court to view the videotape,” excluding the tape did not prejudice

the defendant’s constitutional rights). And Welborne himself later

contradicted J.K.’s account. See People v. Hoover, 165 P.3d 784,

796 (Colo. App. 2006) (finding the erroneous exclusion of state-of-

mind evidence to be harmless where the record showed that the

defendant was able to provide substantial testimony concerning his

state of mind); cf. Vega v. People, 893 P.2d 107, 120 (Colo. 1995)

(holding constitutional error in precluding cross-examination into

incentive program for Drug Enforcement Administration agents was

harmless beyond a reasonable doubt where other evidence revealed

the agents’ bias toward obtaining convictions for drug-related

offenses).

21
¶ 49 Finally, the evidence of Welborne’s guilt was abundant.

Indeed, J.K. testified to Welborne’s inculpatory conversations that

G.S. could not have overheard (e.g., those between Welborne and

Lawson about how to set a house fire). For all these reasons, any

error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

V. Merger

¶ 50 Welborne contends that criminal mischief is an included

offense of first degree arson and, therefore, those convictions must

merge. His contention finds support in People v. Abeyta, 541 P.2d

333, 335 (Colo. App. 1975) (not published pursuant to C.A.R. 35(f)).

We decline to apply Abeyta, however, because it conflicts with both

the controlling law at the time it was issued and the supreme

court’s recent clarification of the applicable test for evaluating when

one offense is included in another. See Reyna-Abarca v. People,

2017 CO 15, ¶¶ 59-66. Welborne’s claim fails the governing test.

A. Standard of Review

¶ 51 We review de novo a claim that a conviction violates the

constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. People v.

McMinn, 2013 COA 94, ¶ 18. Because Welborne did not preserve

22
 this issue, we may reverse only if plain error occurred.

Reyna-Abarca, ¶ 2; People v. Morales, 2014 COA 129, ¶¶ 46-47.

B. Analysis

¶ 52 If one offense is included in another offense, a defendant may

not be convicted of both. § 18-1-408(1)(a), C.R.S. 2016. As

pertinent here, one offense is included in another offense charged

when “[i]t is established by proof of the same or less than all the

facts required to establish the commission of the offense charged.”

§ 18-1-408(5)(a); Reyna-Abarca, ¶ 51. Our supreme court has

consistently held that this statute requires a “statutory elements” or

“strict elements” test, under which we compare the elements of the

two criminal statutes rather than the specific evidence used to

sustain the charges. Reyna-Abarca, ¶ 53; People v. Rivera, 186

Colo. 24, 27-28, 525 P.2d 431, 433-34 (1974).

¶ 53 As charged here, first degree arson requires proof that the

defendant (1) knowingly; (2) set fire to, burned, or caused to be

burned; (3) any building or occupied structure; (4) of another;

(5) without that person’s consent. § 18-4-102(1), C.R.S. 2016; cf.

COLJI-Crim. 4-1:01 (2016). As charged here, criminal mischief

requires proof that the defendant (1) knowingly; (2) damaged; (3) the

23
 real or personal property; (4) of one or more other persons,

including property owned by the defendant jointly with another

person or property owned by the defendant in which, at the time of

the damage, another person had a possessory or propriety interest;

(5) in the course of a single criminal episode. § 18-4-501(1), C.R.S.

2016; § 18-4-501(1), C.R.S. 2012; cf. COLJI-Crim. 4-5:01 (2016).3

1. Before Reyna-Abarca

¶ 54 In Abeyta, 541 P.2d at 335, the division opined that criminal

mischief is a lesser included offense of first degree arson. Other

than the requisite mental state, the statutory elements of both

offenses then were substantially the same as those in 2012 and

2016. See id. (stating that both 1973 statutes required mental state

of “intentionally”). Citing Rivera’s statutory elements test, the

Abeyta division decided, with little discussion, that “the essential

elements of [criminal mischief] are necessarily proven if the

elements of [first degree arson] are present.” Id.

3 The 2016 statute differs somewhat from the 2012 version in effect
at the time of Welborne’s offenses, but not as to the elements set
forth above. The 2016 version restructures and revises the
aggregate damage amounts relevant to enhancing criminal mischief
from a misdemeanor to a felony. See § 18-4-501(4), C.R.S. 2016.

24
¶ 55 The Abeyta division was mistaken because criminal mischief

required an element that first degree arson did not. As it did in

2012 and does today, the criminal mischief statute in Abeyta

applied only if the charged acts occurred “in the course of a single

criminal episode.” Id. (quoting section 18-4-501, C.R.S. 1973); see

People v. Thoro Prods. Co., 45 P.3d 737, 745 (Colo. App. 2001)

(describing the “single criminal episode” language of section

18-4-501 as an element of the offense), aff’d, 70 P.3d 1188 (Colo.

2003). In other words, the criminal mischief statute has always

required proof that the defendant committed the acts in the course

of a single criminal episode. See also COLJI-Crim. 4-5:01 cmt. 3

(2016) (explaining that Thoro Products recognized “the ‘single

criminal episode’ language of section 18-4-501 as establishing an

element of the offense”).4 The first degree arson statute has never

set forth such an element.

4 The 2016 model instructions had not been issued at the time of
Welborne’s offenses. Still, those instructions are informative
because they interpret relevant statutory language that was in effect
at the time of his offenses. See § 18-4-501(1), C.R.S. 2012; People
v. Morales, 2014 COA 129, ¶ 42 (recognizing that model
instructions, while not binding, are intended as guidelines and
should be considered by courts); People v. Romero, 197 P.3d 302,
309 (Colo. App. 2008) (Pattern jury instructions “carry weight and

25
¶ 56 Accordingly, Abeyta was wrongly decided at the time.

2. After Reyna-Abarca

¶ 57 Under the supreme court’s new formulation in Reyna-Abarca,

¶ 64, “an offense is a lesser included offense of another offense if

the elements of the lesser offense are a subset of the elements of the

greater offense, such that the lesser offense contains only elements

that are also included in the elements of the greater offense.” We

asked the parties to brief Reyna-Abarca’s effect on Abeyta.

¶ 58 Welborne, noting that Reyna-Abarca did not expressly overrule

Abeyta and arguing that the cases apply the same strict elements

test, contends that Reyna-Abarca does not contradict Abeyta. True,

the Reyna-Abarca court did not mention Abeyta. Even so, the

reasoning of Reyna-Abarca confirms that Abeyta was wrong.

¶ 59 Just as under the former test, under the Reyna-Abarca test

“one offense is not a lesser included offense of another if the lesser

offense requires an element not required for the greater offense.” Id.

at ¶ 60 (discussing Schmuck v. United States, 489 U.S. 705 (1989),

from which the Reyna-Abarca court fashioned its new test).

should be considered by the court.” (citing People v. Armstrong, 720
P.2d 165, 168 (Colo. 1986))).

26
 Because criminal mischief requires proof that the acts were

committed in a single criminal episode — while first degree arson

does not — criminal mischief is not an included offense of first

degree arson under the Reyna-Abarca analysis.5

¶ 60 We are not persuaded otherwise by Welborne’s claim that

criminal mischief is “necessarily included” in first degree arson

because “it is impossible to commit first degree arson without also

committing criminal mischief.” In Reyna-Abarca, ¶¶ 65-67, the

court rejected such a test for identifying an included offense when

the court disavowed Meads v. People, 78 P.3d 290 (Colo. 2003).

Meads had applied the following test: if proof of facts establishing

the statutory elements of the greater offense necessarily establishes

all the elements of the lesser offense, the lesser offense is included.

See Reyna-Abarca, ¶ 65. The Reyna-Abarca court abandoned that

former test and acknowledged that “the result in Meads would have

5 Because we must apply the strict elements test (rather than an
evidentiary test), we are loath to look beyond the elements
expressed in the first degree arson statute by theorizing that a
“single criminal episode” element is necessarily implicit in the first
degree arson offense. Cf. People v. Leske, 957 P.2d 1030, 1036-40
(Colo. 1998) (rejecting the claim that the age disparity element of
the sexual assault on a child offense is “jurisdictionally implicit” in
the position of trust offense).

27
 been different” under the new “clarified version of the strict

elements test.” Id. at ¶ 67.

¶ 61 Indeed, the result in Reyna-Abarca would have been different

under the version of the strict elements test used in Meads and

advocated by Welborne. Reyna-Abarca considered, among other

things, whether “DUI” is a lesser included offense of “vehicular

assault-DUI.” Id. at ¶ 1. Because vehicular assault-DUI can be

committed with a boat or a plane, whereas DUI can be committed

only in a self-propelled vehicle that is designed primarily for travel

on the public highways, it is possible to commit vehicular assault-

DUI without also committing DUI. Id. at ¶ 75. Under Meads and

Welborne’s approach, therefore, DUI would not be a lesser included

offense of vehicular assault-DUI because proof of vehicular assault-

DUI does not necessarily establish all the elements of DUI. See

Meads, 78 P.3d at 295-96 (holding that, because the element of

obtaining or exercising control over anything of value does not

necessarily establish the element of obtaining or exercising control

over a motor vehicle, second degree aggravated motor vehicle theft

is not a lesser included offense of felony theft). But Reyna-Abarca

28
 rebuffed that analysis and conclusion under its new test. Id. at

¶¶ 76-78. Likewise, we must reject Welborne’s contention.6

VI. Conclusion

¶ 62 The judgment is affirmed.

JUDGE HAWTHORNE and JUDGE DUNN concur.

6Given our disposition, we need not address the People’s other
arguments as to why criminal mischief is not included in first
degree arson.

29