People v. Jackson

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
May 31, 2018

2018COA79

No. 2016CA0854 — Constitutional Law — Fifth Amendment —
Double Jeopardy; Crimes — Murder in the First Degree —
Inchoate Offenses — Criminal Attempt

When a defendant attempts to deliberately kill one person but

mistakenly kills a different person and is convicted of both the

attempted murder of the intended victim and the actual murder of

the unintended victim, a division of the court of appeals concludes

that the attempted murder conviction must be vacated because it is

a lesser included offense of the murder conviction.

The division also affirms the trial court’s rulings granting the

prosecution’s motion for a mistrial, admitting an unavailable

witness’s statements under the doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing

and CRE 807, and rejecting the defense’s proposed complicity

instruction.
 The judgment is affirmed in part and vacated in part, and the

case is remanded for correction of the mittimus.
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2018COA79

Court of Appeals No. 16CA0854
Arapahoe County District Court No. 14CR1968
Honorable Frederick T. Martinez, Judge

The People of the State of Colorado,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

Brandon D. Jackson,

Defendant-Appellant.

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART,
AND CASE REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS

Division VI
Opinion by JUDGE FREYRE
Terry and Navarro, JJ., concur

Announced May 31, 2018

Cynthia H. Coffman, Attorney General, Matthew S. Holman, First Assistant
Attorney General, Nicole D. Wiggins, Assistant Attorney General, Denver,
Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Eric A. Samler, Alternate Defense Counsel, Denver, Colorado, for Defendant-
Appellant
¶1 Defendant, Brandon D. Jackson, appeals the judgment of

conviction for first degree murder after deliberation, attempted first

degree murder after deliberation, attempted first degree murder

with extreme indifference, conspiracy to commit first degree

murder, and accessory. The court declared a mistrial after defense

counsel elicited undisclosed alibi evidence during Jackson’s ex-

wife’s cross-examination. In a second trial, a jury convicted him as

charged.

¶2 Jackson challenges the trial court’s decision to declare a

mistrial over his objection. He also contends that at the second

trial, the court erred in (1) allowing testimonial hearsay under the

forfeiture by wrongdoing doctrine; (2) rejecting his tendered

complicity instruction; and (3) imposing separate convictions and

sentences for attempted murder after deliberation and murder after

deliberation — a novel issue raised by the unique facts of this case.

We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand for correction of the

mittimus.

I. Background

¶3 Jackson and his friends, Amin El-Howeris, Devon

Grant-Washington, Bruce Roberts, Quinten Sauls, Tyrel Walker,

1
 and Roderick Ruben, were members of “Sicc Made,” a subset of the

Crips gang. Victim E.O. belonged to a rival gang called “Most

Hated.” In August 2011, members of Most Hated fired gunshots

into Jackson’s apartment. At a party on the night of December 23

and into the morning of December 24, 2011, E.O. shot El-Howeris,

but El-Howeris survived.

¶4 On the night of December 25, 2011, and into the early

morning hours of December 26, Jackson, El-Howeris,

Grant-Washington, Roberts, Sauls, Walker, and Ruben gathered at

Aisha Amin’s apartment to discuss retaliating against E.O. Sauls

said, “They mess with one of us, they mess with all of us.” They

passed around a black gun with a laser sight and discussed killing

E.O. They knew where E.O. lived and that he drove a gold SUV.

The men left in two Ford Explorers — Jackson drove the green Ford

Explorer with Sauls as his passenger. The others left in a blue Ford

Explorer. They met at E.O.’s apartment complex and

Grant-Washington got into the green Ford Explorer with Jackson

and Sauls. Cell phone tower records placed Jackson, Roberts, and

Grant-Washington at the same location.

2
¶5 Victim Y.M. lived in E.O.’s apartment complex. He arrived

home from work at 3 a.m. driving a gold SUV similar to E.O.’s and

parked across the street from E.O.’s apartment. Believing Y.M. was

E.O., either Sauls or Grant-Washington got out of Jackson’s car,

walked over to the SUV, and shot Y.M. twice in the head, killing him

instantly. When they realized they had killed the wrong man, the

men turned and fired numerous shots into E.O.’s apartment.

II. Mistrial — Double Jeopardy

¶6 Jackson first challenges the court’s decision to declare a

mistrial after cross-examination of Leah Jackson (his ex-wife)

revealed an undisclosed alibi defense. He contends that the trial

court failed to consider less drastic alternatives, that no manifest

necessity for a mistrial existed, and that his retrial is barred by

double jeopardy. We perceive no grounds for reversal.

A. Additional Facts

¶7 Five months after Y.M.’s murder, Law Enforcement

Investigator Kim Johnston interviewed Ms. Jackson concerning

Jackson’s whereabouts the previous December. Ms. Jackson said

Jackson had spent the night at her house either on December 24

into December 25 or on December 25 into December 26. The

3
 investigator said she knew it “had to have been the 24th into the

25th.”

¶8 Several years later and in preparation for the trial of a

codefendant, a different investigator re-interviewed Ms. Jackson.

Ms. Jackson said that Jackson spent the night with her on

Christmas Eve and was at her house when she left the next

morning to visit her parents. When she returned at 8 p.m.,

Jackson was gone and she did not recall him coming to her house

the next day, December 26.

¶9 Unbeknownst to the prosecution, approximately one month

before the first trial, Ms. Jackson contacted the defense to provide

new information. She told defense counsel and a defense

investigator that she was now certain that Jackson had spent the

night of December 25 with her and that he woke up at her house

the morning of December 26, contrary to the information contained

in the two previous reports. She explained that she came home

from her parents’ house and had to clean her house. She finished

cleaning late — between 11 p.m. and midnight — and that Jackson

arrived shortly thereafter. The defense did not endorse an alibi

defense or move to continue the trial to do so.

4
¶ 10 During opening statement, the prosecutor explained that

Jackson did not shoot Y.M. and that he sought a conviction based

on complicity. He said the evidence would show that Jackson and

the others spent the evening of December 25 into the early morning

of December 26 discussing and planning to retaliate against E.O. by

killing him. This meeting occurred at Amin’s apartment. The

defense waived opening statement and did not reveal its theory of

defense.

¶ 11 During the prosecution’s case, Ms. Jackson testified on direct

examination that Jackson stayed overnight on Christmas Eve and

that they opened presents with their kids Christmas morning. She

said “after that, I got the kids dressed and I got myself dressed and

we left to my mom’s early, around 10:00.” She returned home later

that night — “probably like around 10:00, between 9:00 and 10:00”

— and Jackson was not there.

¶ 12 During cross-examination, Ms. Jackson confirmed the same

sequence of events. However, she then added, when asked, that

Jackson had returned later that night and spent the night of

December 25 with her. Defense counsel asked her the following:

5
 DEFENSE COUNSEL: And as you’re sitting
here today, Ms. Jackson, is there any doubt in
your mind that it was Christmas night, the
early morning hours of the 26th, that Mr.
Jackson came back to your house?

MS. JACKSON: I have no doubt.

¶ 13 Following cross-examination and in a bench conference, the

prosecutor objected to this new information and said, “This is

clearly alibi information. We received no notice of an alibi defense

by the defense.” He explained that the new testimony placed

Jackson with his ex-wife, rather than at Amin’s apartment when

the killing was planned or at E.O.’s apartment complex. The

prosecutor moved for a mistrial and argued that less drastic

alternatives would not undo the prejudice created to its case.

¶ 14 Defense counsel argued that she was not pursuing an alibi

defense or requesting an alibi instruction. She explained that the

cross-examination concerned Ms. Jackson’s initial statement to

Investigator Johnston and was intended to rebut Ms. Jackson’s

direct examination concerning when Jackson stayed at her house.

Defense counsel denied trying to “come in on the 11th hour and

provide an alibi.”

6
¶ 15 The court said it had three potential options: (1) instruct the

jury that this was not alibi evidence; (2) strike the testimony; or (3)

declare a mistrial. It noted that no one had asked the crucial

question — whether Jackson ever left Ms. Jackson’s house the

morning of December 26.

¶ 16 The court questioned Ms. Jackson outside the jury’s presence

concerning how and when this information was disclosed to the

defense. Ms. Jackson said she had provided the new information to

the defense “last month” and confirmed she had never revealed it to

the prosecution. The prosecutor renewed his mistrial motion. He

asserted that (1) the defense had violated its Crim. P. 16 obligation

to disclose this alibi evidence; (2) a twenty-four to forty-eight hour

delay would be insufficient time to investigate and to remedy the

prejudice; and (3) striking the testimony would be insufficient

because the “bell just can’t be unrung at this point and it’s not

something that can just be sanitized or scrubbed from the jury’s

mind” given that the jury already heard the evidence. Defense

counsel objected to the mistrial, but otherwise agreed with the

alternate remedies of striking the testimony or instructing the jury.

The court deferred ruling until the end of Ms. Jackson’s testimony.

7
¶ 17 On redirect examination, Ms. Jackson then confirmed that

Jackson was with her the entire night and had never left during the

early morning hours of December 26. She also revealed that she

initiated contact with the defense to provide the new information

and denied having done so at Jackson’s behest.

¶ 18 The court then ruled that although it had a variety of potential

remedies, it believed a mistrial was appropriate “as a result of the

defendant’s misconduct.” It found that the information was new, it

constituted alibi evidence, and it had never been disclosed to the

prosecution. The court found that these circumstances amounted

to manifest necessity to declare a mistrial, explaining that it did not

know how the prosecution could recover from evidence in the

defense’s possession for more than a month that was sprung on it

midtrial.

B. Standard of Review and Relevant Law

¶ 19 A trial court has broad discretion in ruling on a mistrial

motion, and we will not disturb the court’s decision in the absence

of an abuse of discretion resulting in prejudice to the defendant.

People v. Chastain, 733 P.2d 1206, 1213 (Colo. 1987). A trial court

is better able than a reviewing court to determine whether improper

8
 testimony had any adverse effect on the jury. People v. Ellis, 30

P.3d 774, 777-78 (Colo. App. 2001).

¶ 20 Declaring a mistrial is “the most drastic of remedies” and is

warranted only when the prejudice is too substantial to be remedied

by other means. See People v. Santana, 255 P.3d 1126, 1132 (Colo.

2011); see also People v. Pagan, 165 P.3d 724, 728 (Colo. App.

2006). The Federal and Colorado Double Jeopardy Clauses bar a

retrial unless the defendant consents to the mistrial or the mistrial

is legally justified. U.S. Const. amend. V; Colo. Const. art. II, § 18;

People v. Berreth, 13 P.3d 1214, 1216 (Colo. 2000).

¶ 21 A trial court is justified in declaring a mistrial when the

circumstances amount to “manifest necessity” or when it finds, in

its discretion, that the ends of public justice would not be served by

continuing the proceedings. People v. Segovia, 196 P.3d 1126, 1133

(Colo. 2008); see also Berreth, 13 P.3d at 1216.

¶ 22 Manifest necessity includes circumstances that are

“substantial and real, [and] that interfere with or retard ‘the

administration of honest, fair, even-handed justice to either, both,

or any, of the parties to the proceeding.’” Segovia, 196 P.3d at 1133

(quoting People v. Castro, 657 P.2d 932, 942 (Colo. 1983)). The

9
 General Assembly has identified circumstances where a mistrial is

justified in section 18-1-301(2)(b), C.R.S. 2017. They include (1) a

physical impossibility to proceed with the trial in conformity with

the law; (2) a legal defect in the proceedings that would make any

judgment entered upon a verdict reversible as a matter of law; (3)

prejudicial conduct that has occurred in or outside the courtroom

making it unjust to either the defendant or the State to proceed

with the trial; (4) the jury’s inability to render a verdict; and (5) a

juror’s false statement in voir dire. Id. The statute and cases

establish that manifest necessity arises where circumstances are

serious and outside of the court’s control. Segovia, 196 P.3d at

1133. Moreover, a mistrial is justified only when other reasonable

alternatives are no longer available. Id.; Paul v. People, 105 P.3d

628, 633 (Colo. 2005); Doumbouya v. Cty. Court, 224 P.3d 425, 428

(Colo. App. 2009).

C. Application

¶ 23 We begin by noting that Jackson does not challenge the

court’s ruling that Ms. Jackson’s testimony constituted alibi

evidence. For our analysis, we presume that it is. A defendant may

not elicit alibi evidence, absent good cause, without first complying

10
 with the alibi disclosure requirements of Crim. P. 16 (II)(d). See

People v. Hampton, 696 P.2d 765, 775-76 (Colo. 1985) (upholding

the exclusion of alibi evidence under previous version of the rule

when defense did not comply with disclosure requirements); see

also Crim. P. 16(III)(g) (allowing the court to impose sanctions for a

failure to comply with the rules); People v. Greenwell, 830 P.2d

1116, 1119 (Colo. App. 1992) (finding the district court did not

abuse its discretion in excluding a defense witness not properly

endorsed by the defense under the rules). Because the prosecution

must often prove a defendant’s presence during the commission of a

crime, the rule’s disclosure requirements are designed to provide

the prosecution with adequate means to evaluate and meet the alibi

testimony of defense witnesses. Hampton, 696 P.2d at 775.

¶ 24 The undisputed record shows that the defense provided no

notice to the prosecution of Ms. Jackson’s new claim that Jackson

was with her during the planning and commission of the crimes,

despite receiving it one month before trial. It also shows that the

defense elicited this new information during Ms. Jackson’s cross-

examination in violation of Crim. P. 16(II)(d). We are not persuaded

that the court’s decision to permit Ms. Jackson’s redirect

11
examination in front of the jury created the need for a mistrial

because her response was unknown and, as the court noted, may

have mooted the parties’ arguments had she testified that Jackson

left during the early morning hours of December 26.1 Instead, it

was the defense’s decision not to disclose the new information but

nevertheless to elicit it on cross-examination in violation of Rule 16,

which shows the circumstances giving rise to the mistrial were

outside the court’s control, and which supports the trial court’s

finding that the mistrial resulted from the defense’s misconduct.

See Berreth, 13 P.3d at 1217 (“[B]oth case law and statutory criteria

show that circumstances must be serious and outside the control of

the trial court in order to justify a finding of ‘manifest necessity’” to

justify a mistrial.); see also State v. Carter, 2016 WL 4268774,

2016-Ohio-5371 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016) (declaring a mistrial was not

an abuse of discretion for defense’s failure to properly disclose alibi

evidence).

1For the same reasons, we reject Jackson’s argument that the
prosecutor’s failure to object until the end of cross-examination
created the prejudice. Because the prosecutor did not know what
Ms. Jackson would say, he could not object until the alibi evidence
was elicited.

12
¶ 25 We next address and reject Jackson’s contention that the trial

court failed to consider less drastic alternatives to a mistrial. To the

contrary, the record reveals that the court considered the factors set

forth in Segovia and the statute. It discussed the possibility of

striking the testimony, noting that the jury heard pure alibi

evidence that Jackson was nowhere near the crime. Given the

noncompliance with the disclosure rule and the significance of this

new evidence, it found this option insufficient to cure the prejudice

to the prosecution. See Williamsen v. People, 735 P.2d 176, 183

(Colo. 1987) (“Questions of the probative value and possible

prejudicial impact of evidence are addressed to the sound discretion

of the trial court, and the trial judge’s rulings will not be disturbed

absent a clear abuse of discretion.”).

¶ 26 Implicit in the court’s finding that striking the testimony

would not ameliorate the prejudice was its determination that an

instruction requiring the jury to disregard the evidence would be

equally insufficient. Indeed, the court said it could not see how the

prosecution could recover from what had been given to the defense

a month earlier. See Paul, 105 P.3d at 633 (The trial court did not

13
 abuse its discretion by implicitly determining that “other reasonable

alternatives [were] no longer available.”).

¶ 27 Next, the record shows that the trial court considered a short

delay in the trial (forty-eight hours) for the prosecution to

investigate and meet the new evidence. However, it found that the

time required just to sort through the hundreds of jail calls to

ascertain whether Jackson had influenced his ex-wife’s new

testimony would far exceed forty-eight hours. Noting that this was

a cold case, the court found “the prosecution cannot reasonably be

expected to attempt to uncover any impeachment information, . . .

whether it [be] during trial or during a . . . break in the

proceedings.” After considering the factors outlined in Hampton —

reason for nondisclosure, degree of culpability associated with

nondisclosure, extent of prejudice to the other party, and

reasonable lesser alternatives to exclusion of the alibi evidence —

the court ultimately concluded that the alibi evidence was

particularly significant because it completely exculpated Jackson

from criminal conduct, and that justice to both parties could only

“be served by either rebutting this information or the case being

14
 dismissed if this alibi is, in fact, true.” Noting this was not an easy

decision, the court granted the People’s request for a mistrial.

¶ 28 Because the trial court carefully considered the parties’

arguments and its available options, and because it was in the best

position to assess the prejudicial impact, we discern no abuse of

discretion in its decision to declare a mistrial. To deprive trial

courts of their ability to declare mistrials in circumstances such as

these would cripple their ability to control and sanction counsel’s

conduct in their courtroom. See Arizona v. Washington, 434 U.S.

497, 513 (1978). Indeed, “[n]either party has a right to have his

case decided by a jury which may be tainted by bias; in these

circumstances, ‘the public’s interest in fair trials designed to end in

just judgements’ must prevail over the defendant’s ‘valued right’ to

have his trial concluded before the first jury impaneled.” Id. at 516

(footnotes omitted) (quoting Wade v. Hunter, 336 U.S. 684, 689

(1949))).

¶ 29 Accordingly, we affirm the court’s ruling declaring a mistrial.

15
 III. Walker’s Hearsay Statements are Admissible Under the
Doctrine of Forfeiture by Wrongdoing

¶ 30 Jackson next contends that the trial court erroneously

admitted testimonial hearsay statements of uncharged

co-conspirator Tyrel Walker to law enforcement officials under the

doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing and under the residual hearsay

exception, CRE 807. He argues that insufficient evidence shows

that Walker’s decision not to testify related to him and that Walker’s

statements were unreliable and therefore inadmissible. We disagree

and conclude that (1) the prosecution proved by a preponderance of

the evidence that Jackson forfeited his right to confront Walker and

(2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting Walker’s

statements.

A. Additional Facts

¶ 31 Walker spoke twice with Investigator Craig Tangeman about

the shooting — first on February 23, 2012, and again on February

28, 2012. Walker disavowed any knowledge of the shooting in the

first interview. However, during the February 28 interview, he

admitted being with the group of people involved in the shooting.

Walker said that Jackson drove the green Ford Explorer and that

16
 Walker was a passenger in the blue Ford Explorer. Walker did not

witness the shooting but heard the fired shots. According to

Walker, after the shots were fired, Jackson drove up to the blue

Ford Explorer, said that the wrong person had been shot, and said

they then shot into E.O.’s apartment.

¶ 32 On August 18, 2015, Walker wrote a letter to the prosecution

saying he did not want nor intend to participate in the upcoming

trial. He explained that he was already serving a seventy-year

prison sentence, that he was not a star witness, and that he did not

remember the day or crime in question and would say so if brought

to court. Thereafter, the prosecution moved to admit Walker’s

February 28 statements, alleging that Jackson had forfeited his

right to confront Walker by causing him not to testify.

¶ 33 At the hearing, the prosecutor produced evidence of jail

telephone calls between Jackson and other members of Sicc Made,

as well as law enforcement officials’ investigation concerning the

identities of the persons named in the phone calls. That evidence

revealed that Jackson’s cousin, Mikey Clopton, was in the Sterling

prison where Walker was also housed. In a phone call to Juhn

Simmons (a Sicc Made member), Jackson asked Simmons to ask

17
 Clopton to ask Walker if he intended to take the stand and also to

relay that Walker was the prosecution’s star witness. In a second

call to Simmons, Jackson directed that Walker contact the defense

investigator and “see if he’s willing to recant, pretty much.”

¶ 34 Jackson argued that the forfeiture by wrongdoing doctrine did

not apply because the prosecution failed to prove that he caused

Walker’s unavailability with the intent to prevent him from

testifying. He further argued that the statements constituted

inadmissible hearsay. He makes the same arguments on appeal.

¶ 35 In a detailed oral order, the trial court found that (1) the

prosecution proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that

Jackson forfeited his right to confrontation because he caused

Walker’s refusal to testify; and (2) Walker’s statements were

admissible under CRE 807.

B. Confrontation Clause and Forfeiture by Wrongdoing

1. Standard of Review and Applicable Law

¶ 36 We review de novo a trial court’s ruling on whether a

confrontation claim is barred under the forfeiture by wrongdoing

doctrine. Vasquez v. People, 173 P.3d 1099, 1103 (Colo. 2007). We

review for clear error the court’s factual findings made at the

18
 forfeiture hearing, and we will not disturb those findings unless

they are clearly erroneous. Id. at 1105. A finding is clearly

erroneous if it has no support in the record. People v. Alaniz, 2016

COA 101, ¶ 40.

¶ 37 We review a trial court’s evidentiary rulings for an abuse of

discretion. See People v. McFee, 2016 COA 97, ¶ 17. A court

abuses its discretion when its ruling is manifestly arbitrary,

unreasonable, or unfair, or when it is based on an erroneous

understanding or application of the law. Id.

¶ 38 A defendant forfeits his right to confront a witness at any

proceeding in which the witness’s statements are otherwise

admissible where “a court finds that (1) the witness is unavailable;

(2) the defendant was involved in, or responsible for, procuring the

unavailability of the witness; and (3) the defendant acted with the

intent to deprive the criminal justice system of evidence.” Vasquez,

173 P.3d at 1103-04; see also People v. Moreno, 160 P.3d 242, 247

(Colo. 2007). The prosecution must prove, by a preponderance of

the evidence, the elements of forfeiture by wrongdoing. Vasquez,

173 P.3d at 1105. Any forfeiture applies to confrontation rights

under the Federal and Colorado Constitutions. Id. at 1101.

19
 2. Analysis

¶ 39 We conclude that the trial court applied the proper forfeiture

test, weighing each of the three factors and assessing them in light

of the proper preponderance burden. Vasquez, 173 P.3d at 1104-

05.

¶ 40 First, the parties do not dispute, and we conclude the record

sufficiently shows, that Walker was unavailable. Jackson’s sole

related argument is that the prosecution did not prove he directly

caused Walker’s unavailability. He relies on the contents of

Walker’s letter, which he argues reflects Walker’s voluntary decision

not to testify and refers to no threats associated with testifying. He

further argues that Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353 (2008), decided

after his trial, limits the scope of the forfeiture by wrongdoing

doctrine to circumstances where a defendant’s sole purpose for

silencing a witness is to prevent the witness from testifying. Thus,

he argues, even if there was some evidence that he wished Walker

would not testify, the prosecution needed to prove Jackson had a

specific intent to silence Walker. Courts in other jurisdictions,

however, have explicitly rejected this interpretation of Giles. See,

e.g., United States v. Jackson, 706 F.3d 264, 268 (4th Cir. 2013)

20
 (“The [Giles] Court made no mention of any requirement that the

defendant’s desire to silence the witness be the sole or primary

motivation for his misconduct.”); People v. Banos, 100 Cal. Rptr. 3d

476, 493 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (“[N]othing in Crawford, Davis, Giles I

or Giles II suggests that the defendant’s sole purpose in killing the

victim must be to stop the victim from cooperating with authorities

or testifying against the defendant. It strikes us as illogical and

inconsistent with the equitable nature of the doctrine to hold that a

defendant who otherwise would forfeit confrontation rights by his

wrongdoing . . . suddenly regains those confrontation rights if he

can demonstrate another evil motive for his conduct.”); State v.

Supanchick, 263 P.3d 378, 383 (Or. Ct. App. 2011) (“[T]he Court’s

opinion in Giles does not suggest that [a defendant’s] sole or even

primary purpose in making the victim unavailable must have been

to prevent the victim from reporting defendant to the authorities or

testifying against him.”), aff’d, 323 P.3d 231 (Or. 2014). We agree

with these courts and conclude that our supreme court’s decision

in Vasquez supports this view.

¶ 41 In Vasquez, 173 P.3d at 1103, the defendant killed his wife

during the pendency of other criminal proceedings. He argued that

21
 the prosecution was required to prove his intent to silence her

testimony in each case separately, and that no intent evidence

existed for the homicide case. Our supreme court rejected this

narrow interpretation of the intent requirement and held that

evidence of a defendant’s interference with a witness can work a

forfeiture of the defendant’s confrontation rights in all proceedings

in which the witness’s statements are admissible. Id. Consistent

with this holding, we conclude that Jackson’s communications to

Walker, through other members of Sicc Made, about whether he

planned to “take the stand” and to contact the defense investigator

to “recant” constitute sufficient evidence to establish his

interference with Walker’s testimony by a preponderance of the

evidence. Moreover, the existence of other reasons for Walker’s

unavailability (as stated in his letter) does not alter our conclusion.

See id. at 1104-05 (“[P]reventing the witness’s testimony does not

have to be the defendant’s sole motivation, but need be only one

reason for the defendant’s actions.”).

¶ 42 As with the interference factor of Vasquez, the record

sufficiently supports the trial court’s factual findings that Jackson

contacted others with the intent of depriving the court of key

22
 evidence. Jackson described Walker as a “star witness” for the

prosecution, and he said in one phone call that Walker “is their only

witness against me, pretty much.” These statements show that

Jackson knew Walker possessed damaging evidence (irrespective of

its truth). And, Jackson’s request that Walker contact the defense

investigator to “recant” evidences his intent to remove this

damaging evidence from the trial.

¶ 43 We are not persuaded that Moreno, 160 P.3d 242 , requires a

different result. There, the child victim was medically unavailable

to testify due to the criminal conduct charged, so the trial court

admitted the child’s videotaped interview over the defendant’s

objection. The supreme court reversed, holding that a defendant

does not forfeit his right to confrontation if the only evidence of

wrongdoing is the offense itself, apart from any design or attempt to

subvert the trial testimony. Id. at 246.

¶ 44 Unlike in Moreno, Walker’s refusal to testify had nothing to do

with the criminal conduct charged, but instead was motivated in

part by Jackson’s communications through Sicc Made

intermediaries asking him to recant. As the forfeiture hearing

unfolded, the trial court, as fact finder, was in the best position to

23
 weigh the credibility of the witnesses and evidence presented, and

we defer to its findings because the record supports them. See

People v. Friend, 2014 COA 123M, ¶ 8 (trial courts are in the best

position to determine questions of fact) (cert. granted in part Feb. 8,

2016).

¶ 45 Finally, because we affirm the trial court’s ruling that Jackson

forfeited his right to confront Walker, we need not address his

argument that the introduction of Walker’s statements to law

enforcement officials infringed his right to confront Walker. See

Vasquez, 173 P.3d at 1103.

C. Hearsay

¶ 46 Jackson contends that the trial court erroneously admitted

Walker’s out-of-court statements under the residual hearsay

exception, CRE 807. We disagree.

1. Standard of Review and Applicable Law

¶ 47 We review the trial court’s evidentiary decisions, including

whether the residual hearsay exception applies, for an abuse of

discretion. Vasquez, 173 P.3d at 1106 n.7. A court abuses its

discretion when its decision is manifestly arbitrary, unfair, or

24
 unreasonable, or contrary to law. See People v. Hoskins, 2014 CO

70, ¶ 17.

¶ 48 CRE 807 provides that a statement not specifically covered by

the other hearsay exceptions “but having equivalent circumstantial

guarantees of trustworthiness” is not excluded by the prohibition

against hearsay if certain requirements are met. A statement may

be admitted under the rule if (1) it is offered as evidence of a

material fact; (2) it is more probative on the point for which it is

offered than any other evidence that could be reasonably procured;

(3) the general purposes of the rules of evidence and the interests of

justice are best served by its admission; and (4) the adverse party

had adequate notice in advance of trial of the intention to offer it

into evidence. People v. Fuller, 788 P.2d 741, 744 (Colo. 1990);

People v. Shifrin, 2014 COA 14, ¶ 59.

¶ 49 “In considering the trustworthiness of a statement, courts

should examine the nature and character of the statement, the

relationship of the parties, the probable motivation of the declarant

in making the statement, and the circumstances under which the

statement was made.” People v. Jensen, 55 P.3d 135, 139 (Colo.

App. 2001); see also Fuller, 788 P.2d at 745. The proponent must

25
 establish the trustworthiness of the statement by a preponderance

of the evidence. People v. Preciado-Flores, 66 P.3d 155, 164 (Colo.

App. 2002).

2. Analysis

¶ 50 We discern no abuse of discretion in the court’s admission of

Walker’s hearsay statements under CRE 807 and conclude that the

trial court’s findings, to which we defer, are supported by the

record. People v. Brown, 2014 COA 155M-2, ¶ 29 (“[W]e defer to the

trial court’s findings of fact which are supported by the record.”).

¶ 51 First, Walker’s statements were evidence of a material fact —

the circumstances surrounding the shooting and Jackson’s

involvement in it. Because Walker was present, heard the shots

fired, and heard Jackson’s inculpatory statements immediately

following the shooting, and because Walker’s statements were

consistent with the physical evidence, his statements were more

probative of what occurred at the apartment complex than the other

circumstantial evidence that was available. Further, the jury’s

truth-finding function, and thereby the interests of justice, are

better served by firsthand accounts. See McFee, ¶ 76 (“Lay opinion

testimony is permitted . . . because ‘it has the effect of describing

26
 something that the jurors could not otherwise experience for

themselves by drawing upon the witness’s sensory and experiential

observations that were made as a firsthand witness to a particular

event.’” (quoting United States v. Freeman, 730 F.3d 590, 595 (6th

Cir. 2013))). Moreover, the undisputed record shows that the

prosecution provided advance notice of its intent to admit Walker’s

hearsay statements.

¶ 52 Concerning indicia of reliability, the trial court found “from a

lay perspective admitting to things that seem to be candid and true,

and then . . . not [being] able to remember certain things based on

his position or passage of time . . . has an indicia of reliability.” It

also found that Walker had no more motivation to implicate

Jackson than any of the other individuals involved because Walker

and Jackson were not close, although they knew each other. And,

it found that the circumstances of the interview — specifically, that

the prosecutor was making decisions about whom to charge —

provided reliability to Walker’s statements.

¶ 53 We are not persuaded by Jackson’s argument that the trial

court gave insufficient weight to Walker’s motivation to avoid first

degree murder charges himself, and “downplayed this rather

27
 important factor.” The record contradicts this assertion and shows

that the court carefully analyzed each statement to determine its

trustworthiness. The court specifically considered the impact of

Walker’s motive:

[T]he question as to his motive is always going
to be suspect, but I think that internally within
the statement he circles back around in terms
of time, place, location, he corroborates
statements that he had made earlier, he came
back to the same statements, he identified
individuals that he was familiar with, and he
also stated when he was not able to identify
individuals. He identified the position of his
vehicle, what his observations were, what he
saw, what he heard, the fact that gunshots
had rung out and that they left immediately
after [Jackson] told him that this guy’s house
had been shot up and he describes the
direction of travel. So based on the totality of
circumstances, I will allow this evidence to
come in.

¶ 54 The court acknowledged that while Walker may have been

trying to avoid culpability, he nevertheless inculpated himself as a

complicitor by admitting that he was at the scene, heard gunshots,

heard Jackson’s inculpatory statements, and thus was a

participant.

¶ 55 For the same reasons, we reject Jackson’s argument that the

court improperly distinguished this case from Bernal v. People, 44

28
 P.3d 184 (Colo. 2002), where our supreme court held that a

co-conspirator’s statements minimizing his own blame and

maximizing others’ did not possess the requisite “particularized

guarantees of trustworthiness” to be admissible under CRE

804(b)(3). Id. at 197, 200. To be sure, Walker’s statements

minimized his participation in the actual murder; however, he

admitted participating in the planning, driving to the apartment

complex, and hearing gunshots. And, as found by the court,

nothing in the record shows why he would implicate Jackson over

the other participants.

¶ 56 Finally, the court noted that unlike in Bernal, where the

witness made numerous inconsistent statements, Walker’s

statements remained consistent, even when the investigator moved

on and then returned to earlier questions. True enough, Walker

could not recall a number of details; however, unlike the

circumstances in Bernal, the investigator never caught Walker in

lies. See id. at 200 (“Even Grose, a detective and witness for the

prosecution, recognized the untrustworthiness of [the

codefendant’s] statement. . . . Grose responded to the court’s

question of why [the codefendant] was upset during the interviews

29
 with the following explanation: ‘Because he was caught in several

lies, and he was being confused as to time, where he was at. And

he was getting frustrated because I was going back over his

statements and he was changing his statements, and he was

confused.”).

¶ 57 Accordingly, we conclude that the decision to admit Walker’s

statements under CRE 807 was not manifestly unreasonable,

arbitrary, or unfair.

IV. Complicity Instruction

¶ 58 Jackson next contends that the complicity instruction was

erroneous for three reasons. First, he asserts that the jury should

have been required to find that he was aware the shooter was acting

after deliberation and with the conscious objective to kill the victim.

He also argues that a separate complicity instruction should have

been given for each offense because each offense contained a

different mens rea. Finally, he argues that the tendered complicity

instruction allowed the jury to convict him of first degree murder

after deliberation with a lesser mens rea than that possessed by the

shooter. Because we are bound by our supreme court’s decision in

30
 People v. Childress, 2015 CO 65M, we conclude the complicity

instruction was proper.

A. Additional Facts

¶ 59 Jackson tendered the following complicity instruction:

A person is guilty of an offense committed by
another person if he is a complicitor. To be
guilty as a complicitor, the following must be
established beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. The crime must have been committed,

2. another person must have committed all or
part of the crime,

3. the defendant must have had knowledge
that the other person intended to commit all or
part of the crime,

4. the defendant be actually aware of or know
that the principal was acting after deliberation,
and with the conscious objective of causing the
death of another,

5. the defendant must have had the intent to
promote or facilitate the commission of the
crime,

6. the defendant must have aided, abetted,
advised, or encouraged the other person(s) in
the commission or planning of the crime.

¶ 60 The tendered instruction included a source note at the bottom

that read as follows:

31
 This instruction is not supported by People v.
Childress, --- P.3d ---, 2015 WL 7423068
(Colo. 2015). However, this proposed
instruction is being submitted in support of D-
30 titled, “Motion to Find C.R.S. 1[8]-1-603
Unconstitutional on its Face And as Applied,
or in the Alternative, Motion for an Alternative
Jury Instruction.”

¶ 61 During the instruction conference, defense counsel argued,

I understand the Court had denied the motion
[to find section 18-1-603 unconstitutional], but
I think the Court said I could still follow up
with the jury instruction to create a record
that we were seeking to introduce it. But I
wanted to obviously note that this was not
supported by the [Childress] case. It might
have been supported by the dissent, but that
has already been ruled upon by the Court.

¶ 62 The court denied Jackson’s tendered instruction, ruling that

(1) the fourth paragraph was subsumed within the third paragraph

and (2) the fourth paragraph only considered the mens rea for first

degree murder while the instruction applied to all charges.

¶ 63 The court instructed the jury as follows:

A person is guilty of an offense committed by
another person if he is a complicitor. To be
guilty as a complicitor, the following must be
established beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. The crime must have been committed,

2. another person must have committed all or
part of the crime,

32
 3. the defendant must have had knowledge
that the other person intended to commit all or
part of the crime,

4. the defendant must have had the intent to
promote or facilitate the commission of the
crime,

5. the defendant must have aided, abetted,
advised, or encouraged the other person(s) in
the commission or planning of the crime.

B. Standard of Review and Applicable Law

¶ 64 Trial courts have a duty to correctly instruct the jury on all

matters of law. People v. Garcia, 28 P.3d 340, 343 (Colo. 2001).

We review de novo whether jury instructions accurately reflect the

law. Riley v. People, 266 P.3d 1089, 1092 (Colo. 2011). Generally,

instructions that accurately track the language of applicable

statutes and pattern instructions are sufficient. People v. Gallegos,

260 P.3d 15, 26 (Colo. App. 2010). However, “pattern instructions

are not law, not authoritative, and not binding on this court, but

they are grounded in our longstanding practice and are regularly

consulted to determine whether jury instructions are erroneous.”

People v. Flockhart, 2013 CO 42, ¶ 12.

¶ 65 Under the complicity statute, “[a] person is legally accountable

as [a] principal for the behavior of another constituting a criminal

33
offense if, with the intent to promote or facilitate the commission of

the offense, he or she aids, abets, advises, or encourages the other

person in planning or committing the offense.” § 18-1-603, C.R.S.

2017. Section 18-1-603 therefore dictates

that a person is legally accountable as a
principal for the behavior of another
constituting a criminal offense if he aids,
abets, advises, or encourages the other person
in planning or committing that offense, and he
does so with: (1) the intent to aid, abet, advise,
or encourage the other person in his criminal
act or conduct, and (2) an awareness of
circumstances attending the act or conduct he
seeks to further, including a required mental
state, if any, that are necessary for commission
of the offense in question.

Childress, ¶ 34.

With regard to causing a particular result that
is an element of the offense in question, rather
than mandating that a complicitor himself act
with the kind of culpability otherwise required
for commission of the offense, complicitor
liability as defined by statute in this
jurisdiction mandates that the complicitor act
with an awareness the principal is or would be
acting with that required mental state.

Id. at ¶ 29 (emphasis added). “[C]ircumstances attending the act or

conduct,” refers to “those elements of the offense describing the

prohibited act itself and the circumstances surrounding its

34
 commission, including a required mental state, if any.” Id.

(emphasis added).

C. Application

¶ 66 We conclude that the tendered instruction properly required

the jury to find that Jackson knew that the shooter intended to

“commit all or part of the crime.” A separate jury instruction

defined first degree murder after deliberation:

The elements of the crime of Murder in the
First Degree (After Deliberation) are:

1. That the defendant,

2. in the State of Colorado, on or about
December 26, 2011,

3. after deliberation, and

4. with the intent,

5. to cause the death of a person other than
himself,

6. caused the death of that person or of
another person.

“[A]fter deliberation” and “with the intent” “to cause the death of a

person” are separate elements of “the crime.” Thus, this

instruction, when read with the complicity instruction, accurately

required the jury to find that Jackson was aware that the shooter

35
 acted after deliberation and with the intent to cause the death of

the victim. Accordingly, we perceive no error in the complicity

instruction.

¶ 67 Next, we address, and reject, Jackson’s contention that the

court should have tailored the complicity instruction to each offense

by providing separate complicity instructions for each offense.

Because Jackson makes this “separate instruction” argument for

the first time on appeal, we review his argument for plain error.

People v. Miller, 113 P.3d 743, 750 (Colo. 2005).

¶ 68 First, Jackson does not cite, nor are we aware of, any

authority requiring a separate complicity instruction for each

offense to which complicity applies. Thus, the alleged error could

not have been “obvious.” See People v. Pollard, 2013 COA 31M, ¶

40 (To be obvious, an error “must contravene (1) a clear statutory

command; (2) a well-settled legal principle; or ([3]) Colorado case

law.”) (citations omitted). Additionally, the court instructed the jury

that each count charged “a separate and distinct offense” and that

“the evidence and the law applicable to each count had to be

considered separately, uninfluenced by [the jury’s] decision as to

any other count.” Because we presume the jury followed the court’s

36
 instructions, we similarly presume that it considered and applied

the complicity instruction to each count separately. People v.

Moody, 676 P.2d 691, 697 (Colo. 1984). Therefore, no error

occurred.

¶ 69 Finally, we conclude that Jackson preserved his “lesser mental

state” argument by arguing the unconstitutionality of section

18-1-603 both facially and as applied (though he does not challenge

the trial court’s ruling denying those claims). However, we reject

his argument for the reasons described above and because we are

bound by Childress, which holds,

with regard to crimes of specific intent[,] . . .
the mental state requirements of
complicity . . . arguably require a less culpable
state of mind on the part of the complicitor
than of the principal; and as a practical
matter, any difference between having both the
knowledge that the principal is acting with a
conscious objective to cause a prohibited
result and the design or desire to promote or
facilitate that act, on the one hand, and
actually having the conscious objective that
the prohibited result occur, on the other, is
largely academic. In any event, it could hardly
be said that a complicitor’s act of aiding,
abetting, advising, or encouraging another
person with both an awareness that the other
person is engaging in behavior, the conscious
objective of which is to cause a prohibited
result, and a design that he do so, is any less

37
 culpable than having that conscious objective
himself.

Childress, ¶ 32. Indeed, Jackson conceded as much in the source

note on his tendered instruction and in his instruction conference

argument. Accordingly, we conclude no error occurred.

V. Double Jeopardy and Multiplicity

¶ 70 Jackson last contends that the court erred in imposing two

convictions and consecutive sentences for his attempted murder

convictions. He asks us to vacate one of the convictions and

sentences. The People concede that the sentences for first degree

murder and attempted first degree murder after deliberation should

run concurrently, but argue that two convictions are justified

because these convictions name different victims (Y.M. and E.O.).

We agree with Jackson. To maximize the jury’s verdict, we vacate

his attempted first degree murder after deliberation conviction and

sentence (because it is a lesser included offense of first degree

murder after deliberation) and remand for correction of the

mittimus.

38
 A. Standard of Review and Relevant Law

¶ 71 We review unpreserved double jeopardy issues for plain error.

See Reyna-Abarca v. People, 2017 CO 15, ¶ 47 (“[W]e conclude that

an appellate court may review an unpreserved double jeopardy

claim and that the court should ordinarily review such a claim for

plain error.”). Plain error is ‘“obvious and substantial,’ and must

have ‘so undermined the fundamental fairness of the [proceeding]

so as to cast serious doubt on the reliability of the judgment.’”

People v. Davis, 2015 CO 36M, ¶ 32 (citations omitted).

¶ 72 The Double Jeopardy Clauses of the United States and

Colorado Constitutions protect an accused against being twice

placed in jeopardy for the same crime. U.S. Const. amend. V; Colo.

Const. art. II, § 18; Woellhaf v. People, 105 P.3d 209, 214 (Colo.

2005). As pertinent here, the Double Jeopardy Clauses protect not

only against a second trial for the same offense, but also “against

multiple punishments for the same offense.” Woellhaf, 105 P.3d at

214 (quoting Whalen v. United States, 445 U.S. 684, 688 (1980)).

¶ 73 Additionally, a defendant may not be convicted of an offense

that is included in another offense. § 18-1-408(1), C.R.S. 2017.

One offense is a lesser included offense of another offense “if the

39
 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.”

Reyna-Abarca, ¶ 64. The lesser offense and greater offense may

only stand “if the offenses were committed by distinctly different

conduct.” People v. Rock, 2017 CO 84, ¶ 17. Thus, if the same

conduct led to the two convictions and establishing the greater

offense establishes “any set of elements sufficient for commission of

that lesser offense,” then the lesser offense is included. Id. at

¶¶ 16-17.

¶ 74 To determine whether an offense is a lesser included offense,

we examine the statutes at issue. In construing a statute, we must

determine and effectuate the intent of the General Assembly.

Whenever possible, we discern such intent from the plain and

ordinary meaning of the statutory language. Woellhaf, 105 P.3d at

215.

¶ 75 Section 18-3-102, C.R.S. 2017, provides as follows:

(1) A person commits the crime of murder in
the first degree if:

(a) After deliberation and with the intent to
cause the death of a person other than

40
 himself, he causes the death of that person or
of another person; or

....

(d) Under circumstances evidencing an
attitude of universal malice manifesting
extreme indifference to the value of human life
generally, he knowingly engages in conduct
which creates a grave risk of death to a person,
or persons, other than himself, and thereby
causes the death of another . . . .

(Emphasis added.)

¶ 76 Attempted first degree murder requires that the defendant

engage in conduct constituting a substantial step toward the

commission of first degree murder, as defined in section 18-3-

102(1)(a) and (d). See § 18-2-101(1), C.R.S. 2017 (“A person

commits criminal attempt if, acting with the kind of culpability

otherwise required for commission of an offense, he engages in

conduct constituting a substantial step toward the commission of

the offense.”).

¶ 77 Finally, section 18-1-408 governs the prosecution of multiple

counts for the same act. It mandates that a defendant

may not be convicted of more than one offense
if:

(a) One offense is included in the other . . . ; or

41
 (b) One offense consists only of an attempt to
commit the other; or

(c) Inconsistent findings of fact are required to
establish the commission of the offense; or

(d) The offenses differ only in that one is
defined to prohibit a designated kind of
conduct generally and the other to prohibit a
specific instance of such conduct; or

(e) The offense is defined as a continuing
course of conduct and the defendant’s course
of conduct was uninterrupted, unless the law
provides that specific periods or instances of
such conduct constitute separate offenses.

§ 18-1-408(1).

¶ 78 If a defendant is convicted and receives multiple punishments

for the same offense, the convictions merge. See People v. Rhea,

2014 COA 60, ¶ 17 (“Merger has the same effect as vacating one of

the multiplicitous sentences.”).

B. Discussion

¶ 79 The prosecution charged Jackson with first degree murder

after deliberation for killing Y.M. It also charged him with two

counts of attempted first degree murder as to E.O. under different

theories — after deliberation and extreme indifference. During

closing arguments, the prosecutor urged the jury to convict

Jackson of the two attempted murder counts based on the five

42
 shots fired into E.O.’s apartment. He argued that Jackson’s

“substantial step” toward murdering E.O. was driving to E.O.’s

apartment. On appeal, however, the People abandon this argument

and instead assert that the shooting of Y.M. encompasses two

separate crimes — first degree murder after deliberation and

attempt — and that two convictions can be entered because the

counts name separate victims (Y.M. for murder and E.O. for

attempted murder).2

¶ 80 We first address and reject the prosecutor’s argument in

closing that was challenged by Jackson in this appeal.

¶ 81 Under that argument, both attempts were based on identical

evidence — the five shots fired into E.O.’s apartment. Although we

recognize our duty to maximize the jury’s verdict, see People v.

Delgado, 2016 COA 174, ¶ 29 (cert. granted Dec. 11, 2017), two

convictions for attempted first degree murder based upon the same

evidence and the same victim cannot stand. See Candelaria v.

People, 148 P.3d 178, 180-81 (Colo. 2006) (“We therefore found that

2The People may defend the judgment on any grounds supported
by the record. See People v. Aarness, 150 P.3d 1271, 1277 (Colo.
2006).

43
 the legislature intended to permit the same defendant to suffer only

one conviction of murder for the killing of any single victim. We

also considered it important, however, that the prosecution be

permitted to charge multiple theories of first degree murder in

separate counts . . . .”) (citation omitted); see also § 18-1-408(1)(e)

(One conviction must be vacated when “[t]he offense is defined as a

continuing course of conduct and the defendant’s course of conduct

was uninterrupted, unless the law provides that specific periods or

instances of such conduct constitute separate offenses.”).

¶ 82 Contrary to the prosecutor’s argument, the trial evidence does

not support “distinct and separate offenses” for each shot fired.

Quintano v. People, 105 P.3d 585, 592 (Colo. 2005). To determine

whether each individual shot constitutes a separate offense, we

examine whether the conduct occurred at different locations, was

the product of new volitional departures, was separated by time, or

was separated by intervening events. Woellhaf, 105 P.3d at 214;

Quintano, 105 P.3d at 591. Because the evidence established that

the five shots were fired in rapid succession, at the same location,

not separated by time or any intervening events, and without a new

44
 volitional departure, we conclude that identical evidence supports

both attempted murder convictions and that only one may stand.

¶ 83 In response to the People’s new argument, Jackson contends

that we must still vacate one of the attempted murder convictions

because attempted murder after deliberation is a lesser included

offense of first degree murder after deliberation. The People

contend that because the counts named different victims, section

18-1-408(3) (mandatory concurrent sentences for convictions

supported by identical evidence) only requires the court to impose

concurrent sentences to avoid a double jeopardy violation, but does

not require that the conviction be vacated. This presents a novel

issue not previously decided by a Colorado appellate court — when

the greater and the lesser first degree murder offenses name

different victims under the same theory, do principles of double

jeopardy require one to be vacated? We answer that question “yes,”

based on the plain language of the first degree murder statute,

which incorporates the doctrine of transferred intent, and conclude

that double jeopardy requires that we vacate Jackson’s conviction

for the lesser included offense of attempted first degree murder after

deliberation.

45
¶ 84 The facts of this case implicate the doctrine of transferred

intent because the victim killed was not the perpetrators’ intended

target. As described in People v. Hunt, 2016 COA 93, the doctrine

of transferred intent

is a legal fiction that is used to hold a
defendant criminally liable to the full extent of
his or her criminal culpability. Traditionally,
the transferred intent theory has been applied
in so-called “bad aim” situations where a
defendant, while intending to kill one person,
accidentally kills an innocent bystander or
another unintended victim. . . . Thus, the
perpetrator’s intent to kill or injure a specific
victim transfers to the unintended victim.

. . . The purpose of the doctrine is to impose
criminal liability upon an actor when he or she
intends to commit a criminal act, and “the
actual result differs from the result designed or
contemplated only in that a different person or
property was injured or affected.”

Id. at ¶ 24 (citations omitted).

¶ 85 The Hunt division recognized that the first degree murder

statute “incorporates the doctrine of transferred intent and holds a

principal liable for the death of an unintended victim” by its plain

language. Id. at ¶ 21 (quoting People v. Candelaria, 107 P.3d 1080,

1091 (Colo. App. 2004)). Indeed, as relevant here, the first degree

murder statute requires that the defendant “cause[] the death of

46
 that person or of another person.” § 18-3-102(1)(a) (emphasis

added).

¶ 86 We recognize that one commentator suggests that the doctrine

of transferred intent is limited to “bad aim” cases and does not

apply to “mistaken identity” cases such as this. See 1 Wayne R.

LaFave, Substantive Criminal Law § 6.4(d), at 475-78 (2d ed. 2003);

see also Martinez v. State, 844 S.W.2d 279, 282 (Tex. App. 1992)

(limiting the transferred intent doctrine to bad aim cases).

¶ 87 However, others take a broader view finding that the purpose

of the doctrine is to impose criminal liability on a person who

commits a criminal act and “the actual result differs from the result

designed or contemplated only in that a different person or property

was injured or affected” without limiting it to bad aim cases. Model

Penal Code § 2.03(2)(a) cmt. 3 (Am. Law Inst. 1985); see also State

v. Austin, 788 N.W.2d 788, 793 (Minn. Ct. App. 2010) (applying the

doctrine to mistaken identity facts and finding “[t]he doctrine

applies when a defendant claims that ‘bad aim’ or a mistaken

identity resulted in the crime affecting a victim other than the

intended victim”). Indeed, one commentator has suggested that the

need for the doctrine can be avoided altogether by incorporating the

47
 doctrine into the statutory language. See 1 Paul H. Robinson,

Criminal Law Defenses § 89(c) (1984) (describing how a homicide

statute requiring an intent to cause the death of a person or

another person includes the doctrine of transferred intent).

¶ 88 Because our General Assembly has chosen to include the

doctrine of transferred intent within the language of the first degree

murder statute, we are persuaded that the doctrine is implicated by

the facts of this case and provides a useful framework for resolving

the legal question presented, even though it involves mistaken

identity rather than bad aim. We find support for our view in an

old supreme court case where the court described the nearly

universal rule that “one who kills another, mistaking him for a third

person whom he intended to kill, is guilty or innocent of the offense

charged the same as if the fatal act had killed the person intended

to be killed.” Ryan v. People, 50 Colo. 99, 102, 114 P. 306, 308

(1911) (quoting Francis Wharton, The Law of Homicide § 359 (Frank

H. Bowlby ed., 3d ed.1907)).

¶ 89 Here, the undisputed evidence shows that the shooter and

Jackson intended to kill E.O. and mistakenly killed Y.M., believing

him to be E.O. Under the doctrine of transferred intent, Jackson’s

48
specific intent to kill E.O. transferred to Y.M. and made him

criminally liable for Y.M.’s death. See State v. Fekete, 901 P.2d 708,

714 (N.M. 1995) (finding that the perpetrator’s intent to kill or

injure a specific victim transfers to the unintended victim). By

proving the first degree murder of Y.M. under this theory, the

prosecution necessarily proved that Jackson intended and

attempted to kill E.O. Therefore, the attempted murder of E.O. after

deliberation is a lesser included offense of the murder after

deliberation of Y.M. Rock, ¶¶ 16-17 (proving elements of the greater

offense necessarily proves all the elements of the lesser offense); see

also Crim. P. 31(c) (“The defendant may be found guilty of an

offense necessarily included in the offense charged or of an attempt

to commit either the offense charged or an offense necessarily

included therein if the attempt is an offense.”). And, because

double jeopardy principles and section 18-1-408(1)(b) preclude

convictions for both the lesser and greater offense, we conclude the

error was obvious, substantial, and undermined the fairness of the

proceeding. Reyna-Abarca, ¶ 81 (“[S]uch a violation requires a

remedy.”).

49
¶ 90 Accordingly, we vacate Jackson’s attempted first degree

murder after deliberation conviction.

VI. Conclusion

¶ 91 The judgment is affirmed as to the convictions of first degree

murder after deliberation, attempted first degree murder with

extreme indifference, conspiracy to commit first degree murder, and

accessory. The judgment for attempted first degree murder after

deliberation is vacated, and the case is remanded for correction of

the mittimus. The mittimus should be amended to delete the

conviction and sentence for attempted first degree murder after

deliberation.

JUDGE TERRY and JUDGE NAVARRO concur.

50