Darr v. People
1977 Colo. LEXIS 632, 193 Colo. 445, 568 P.2d 32 (1977)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Factual impossibility is not a defense to criminal attempt under Colorado's attempt statute when the offense could have been committed had the attendant circumstances been as the actor believed them to be, meaning a mistaken belief that goods are stolen does not negate the requisite mental state for attempted theft by receiving.
Facts:
- Two policemen represented jewelry as being stolen to Darr.
- The jewelry was then sold to Darr by the two policemen.
- The jewelry had, in fact, never been stolen.
- Darr was charged with attempted felony theft by receiving jewelry valued at $100 or more.
Procedural Posture:
- Darr was charged with attempted felony theft by receiving in a trial court.
- At the close of the prosecution's case, the trial court granted Darr's motion for judgment of acquittal.
- The district attorney appealed the trial court's ruling and judgment of acquittal to the Colorado Court of Appeals.
- The Colorado Court of Appeals disapproved the trial court's ruling and judgment of acquittal.
- Darr, the defendant, filed a petition for certiorari with the Colorado Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a defendant's mistaken belief that goods are stolen constitute a valid defense to a charge of attempted theft by receiving when the goods were, in fact, never stolen?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Hodges
No, a defendant's mistaken belief that goods are stolen does not constitute a valid defense to a charge of attempted theft by receiving, because Colorado's attempt statute explicitly states that factual or legal impossibility is not a defense if the offense could have been committed had the attendant circumstances been as the actor believed them to be. The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' disapproval of the trial court's judgment of acquittal, rejecting the trial court's finding that Darr acted under a mistake of fact entitling him to acquittal. The court noted that the traditional "Jaffe rule," which held that an attempt to do an act not criminal if completed could not itself be criminal, has been generally rejected by modern jurisdictions and corrective legislation. Colorado's attempt statute, Section 18-2-101(1), C.R.S. 1973, closely resembles modern statutes like the Model Penal Code by stating that "Factual or legal impossibility of committing the offense is not a defense if the offense could have been committed had the attendant circumstances been as the actor believed them to be." The court found that Darr did "every act within his power" to commit theft by receiving and would have committed the completed offense had the jewelry been stolen as he believed, thereby evidencing the necessary intent. Citing People v. Rojas, the court emphasized that the defendant's intent and acts, not the surrounding circumstances, are the crucial elements of the attempt offense. Addressing Darr's argument regarding the mistake of fact defense statute (Section 18-1-504(1)(a), C.R.S. 1973), the court clarified that this section applies only where the mistake "negatives the existence of a particular mental state essential to commission of the offense." Here, Darr's mistake—his belief that the goods were stolen—actually established the requisite mental state for attempted theft by receiving, rather than negating it. Therefore, the mistake of fact defense was inapplicable.
Analysis:
This case significantly broadens the scope of criminal attempt liability in Colorado by definitively rejecting the "legal impossibility" defense, aligning the state with the modern trend in criminal law. It clarifies that a defendant's criminal intent and actions are paramount in attempt cases, even if external circumstances make the completion of the crime impossible. This ruling prevents individuals from escaping culpability for dangerous conduct merely because their intended victim or object was protected by unforeseen circumstances or law enforcement intervention, reinforcing deterrence and punishment for those who demonstrate a clear intent to commit a crime.
