Yes, it is against the rules. Choking someone is, by its nature, an act that can easily cause serious harm or death. That means strangling someone automatically involves using a 'deadly weapon' (like hands). Since the act described by the 'strangling' law and the 'deadly weapon' law is identical in this situation, you can't let a prosecutor choose the one with the bigger punishment. They must use the specific law that was written for strangling.

No, it's not against the rules. First, Colorado's rule is an oddball compared to the rest of the country; prosecutors should be allowed to choose. Second, the two crimes aren't identical. You could briefly choke someone and cause a minor injury without it being 'deadly.' The 'deadly weapon' charge should be saved for the most dangerous cases of strangling, while the regular 'strangling' charge is for less severe ones. The court is making it too simple.

The court decided it was unfair to charge Lee under both laws because they describe the same action but have different punishments. When someone strangles another person, they're always using their hands (or whatever they're strangling with) as a weapon that could cause serious injury or death. So charging someone under both the strangulation law and the deadly weapon law for the same action violates Colorado's rules about equal protection. The history of the strangulation law shows that lawmakers created it specifically so that all strangulation cases would be charged the same way, without needing to prove that hands were used as deadly weapons. So, Lee should only be charged under the strangulation law, not both laws.

I disagree with the decision for two reasons. First, Colorado is following its own unique rule that almost every other state and the U.S. Supreme Court have rejected. Most places allow prosecutors to choose which law to charge someone under, even if the laws overlap and have different punishments. Second, even using Colorado's unusual rule, these two laws don't describe exactly the same action. Not all strangulation involves using hands as deadly weapons. Hands only become deadly weapons when they're used in a way that could cause death or serious injury. There are situations where someone could strangle another person without their hands being deadly weapons. The majority is wrong to assume all strangulations are the same and that hands are always deadly weapons in strangulation cases.

We agree with Justice Samour. Colorado's rule takes away prosecutors' ability to decide how to charge crimes, which is supposed to be their job. Also, the two laws don't describe exactly the same action, so there's no unfairness in charging under both.

Yes. Charging a defendant for an act of strangulation under both the deadly weapon and strangulation subsections of the second-degree assault statute violates Colorado's equal protection principles because the subsections proscribe identical conduct but impose different punishments. The act of strangulation, by its statutory definition, always involves the use of a deadly weapon, as the instrument used (e.g., hands) is invariably used in a manner capable of causing serious bodily injury or death. Because the deadly weapon subsection punishes this conduct more harshly than the specific strangulation subsection, prosecutors must charge the act under the more specific and less punitive strangulation provision. The legislative history further supports this conclusion, showing the General Assembly's intent to create a specific, uniformly applied felony offense for all strangulation assaults.

No. The court should abandon its outlier equal protection doctrine and adopt the federal standard from U.S. v. Batchelder, which permits prosecutorial discretion in charging under overlapping statutes. Even under Colorado's current doctrine, the two subsections do not proscribe identical conduct. Strangulation does not always involve a deadly weapon, because an assailant could apply sufficient pressure to impede breathing and cause 'bodily injury' without using their hands in a manner 'capable of producing death or serious bodily injury.' The majority wrongly conflates these distinct standards, and there is a pragmatic difference between a less severe strangulation (properly charged under the strangulation statute) and a more dangerous one where hands are used as a deadly weapon (properly charged under the deadly weapon statute).

Yes. Under prevailing Colorado equal protection principles, a defendant may not be charged with second degree assault based on conduct involving strangulation under both the deadly weapon and strangulation subsections because these subsections proscribe identical conduct but punish it differently. Colorado's equal protection guarantee is violated where two criminal statutes proscribe identical conduct, yet one punishes that conduct more harshly. In analyzing whether the two subsections proscribe identical conduct, I must determine whether strangulation, as defined in the statute, will always involve the use of a deadly weapon. I conclude that it does because when a person applies sufficient pressure to impede or restrict another's breathing or blood circulation, the instrument being used (whether hands or otherwise) is always being used as a weapon and will always be at least capable of causing serious bodily injury or death. Therefore, with regard to acts of strangulation, the deadly weapon and strangulation subsections proscribe identical conduct. Since the deadly weapon subsection punishes that conduct more harshly than the strangulation subsection, the defendant must be charged under the strangulation subsection. The legislative history of the strangulation subsection supports this conclusion, as one goal of the 2016 amendments was to create a specific strangulation statute that dispensed with proof of the deadly weapon element, and a second goal was to elevate all forms of strangulation resulting in bodily injury to a felony to achieve more consistency in charging decisions and sentencing statewide.

No. I dissent on two grounds. First, Colorado's unique equal protection doctrine has been soundly rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court and the overwhelming majority of jurisdictions. In United States v. Batchelder, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the government's choice to prosecute a defendant under the harsher of two available criminal statutes does not violate equal protection, absent evidence of selective enforcement. Almost every jurisdiction that had previously held otherwise changed course following Batchelder, but Colorado stubbornly continues to defy this precedent without any meaningful justification. Second, even under Colorado's peculiar equal protection doctrine, there is no violation here because the two subsections do not proscribe identical conduct. Strangulation will not always involve the use of a deadly weapon. Hands are not inherently deadly and only become deadly weapons when used in a manner capable of producing death or serious bodily injury. There are scenarios where a person could commit second degree assault-strangulation without using their hands as a deadly weapon. The majority incorrectly assumes that all strangulations are equal and that hands will always be used in a manner capable of producing serious bodily injury or death in strangulation cases. A person of average intelligence would be able to differentiate between the two types of conduct, and the distinction between them is sufficiently pragmatic to permit an intelligent and uniform application of the law.

We join Justice Samour's dissent, agreeing that Colorado's equal protection doctrine infringes upon the charging prerogatives entrusted to the executive branch and that the two subsections at issue do not proscribe identical conduct.

People v. Lee

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot