Marquiz v. People
1986 Colo. LEXIS 634, 726 P.2d 1105 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The rule of consistency, which states that a sole conspirator cannot be convicted if all alleged co-conspirators are acquitted, does not apply when the co-conspirators are tried in separate proceedings.
Facts:
- Steven Richard Marquiz believed that seventeen-year-old Debra Terhorst had stolen property from his apartment.
- Marquiz resolved to kill Terhorst as a result of this belief.
- Marquiz enlisted the help of Rudy Gallegos and Antonio Laroza to carry out the killing.
- The three men—Marquiz, Gallegos, and Laroza—induced Terhorst to accompany them to a location on Lookout Mountain.
- At Lookout Mountain, the three men stabbed Terhorst multiple times and cut her throat, which resulted in her death.
Procedural Posture:
- Steven Richard Marquiz, Rudy Gallegos, and Antonio Laroza were charged in trial court with first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit first-degree murder.
- The cases against the three defendants were severed for trial.
- In a separate trial, a jury found Gallegos guilty of murder but not guilty of conspiracy.
- In another separate trial, a jury acquitted Laroza of both murder and conspiracy charges.
- Subsequently, a third jury found Marquiz guilty of both first-degree murder and conspiracy.
- Marquiz (appellant) appealed his convictions to the Colorado Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court).
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the convictions.
- The Supreme Court of Colorado granted certiorari to review the conspiracy conviction issue.
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 the rule of consistency apply to bar the conviction of a defendant for conspiracy when his only two alleged co-conspirators were acquitted of the same conspiracy charge in prior, separate trials?
Opinions:
Majority - Lohr, J.
No. The rule of consistency is inapplicable to situations where alleged co-conspirators are not tried in the same proceeding. The traditional rationale for the rule—to prevent a single jury from rendering logically inconsistent verdicts based on the same evidence—disappears when separate juries hear cases in separate trials. Different verdicts in separate trials are not inherently inconsistent because the evidence, legal arguments, and jury composition are never identical. An acquittal can result from numerous factors unrelated to the actual existence of a conspiracy, such as differences in evidence presented, jury compassion, or prosecutorial effectiveness. Applying the rule in this context would improperly compound a possibly erroneous acquittal in one case to create a miscarriage of justice in another.
Analysis:
This decision aligns Colorado with the majority of jurisdictions by limiting the common law 'rule of consistency' to joint trials. It establishes that an acquittal in a criminal case is not an affirmative finding of innocence but merely the prosecution's failure to meet its burden of proof in that specific proceeding. The ruling prevents a defendant from using the acquittal of a co-conspirator in a separate trial as a procedural shield, thereby ensuring that each defendant's guilt or innocence is determined based on the evidence presented at their own trial. This strengthens the prosecution's ability to pursue conspiracy charges against multiple defendants even if it fails to secure a conviction against one of them initially.
