18-1-503. Construction of statutes with respect to culpability requirements.

Statute text

(1) When the commission of an offense, or some element of an offense, requires a particular culpable mental state, that mental state is ordinarily designated by use of the terms "intentionally", "with intent", "knowingly", "willfully", "recklessly", or "criminal negligence" or by use of the terms "with intent to defraud" and "knowing it to be false" describing a specific kind of intent or knowledge.

(2) Although no culpable mental state is expressly designated in a statute defining an offense, a culpable mental state may nevertheless be required for the commission of that offense, or with respect to some or all of the material elements thereof, if the proscribed conduct necessarily involves such a culpable mental state.

(3) If a statute provides that criminal negligence suffices to establish an element of an offense, that element also is established if a person acts recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally. If recklessness suffices to establish an element, that element also is established if a person acts knowingly or intentionally. If acting knowingly suffices to establish an element, that element also is established if a person acts intentionally.

(4) When a statute defining an offense prescribes as an element thereof a specified culpable mental state, that mental state is deemed to apply to every element of the offense unless an intent to limit its application clearly appears.

History

Source: L. 71: R&RE, p. 404, 1. C.R.S. 1963: 40-1-603. L. 77: (1) amended, p. 960, 3, effective July 1.

Annotations

 

ANNOTATION

Annotations

Law reviews. For article, "Criminal Prosecutions under the Colorado Securities Act", see 47 U. Colo. L. Rev. 233 (1976). For article, "Mens Rea and the Colorado Criminal Code", see 52 U. Colo. L. Rev. 167 (1981).

Specific intent is element of crime and is not presumed. Where a crime consists of an act combined with a specific intent, the intent is just as much an element of the crime as is the act. Mere general malice or criminal intent is insufficient, and the requisite specific intent must be shown as a matter of fact, either by direct or circumstantial evidence. The general rule that a criminal intention will be presumed from the commission of the unlawful act does not apply; and proof of the commission of the act does not warrant the presumption that accused had the requisite specific intent. Johnson v. People, 174 Colo. 413, 484 P.2d 110 (1971).

Proof of specific intent. Specific intent is ordinarily inferable from the facts, and proof thereof is necessarily by circumstantial evidence. Johnson v. People, 174 Colo. 413, 484 P.2d 110 (1971).

Mental state required may be implied. Because a crime ordinarily requires the conjunction of an act and a culpable mental state, legislative silence on the element of intent in a criminal statute is not to be construed as an indication that no culpable mental state is required. Rather, the requisite mental state may be implied from the statute. People v. Moore, 674 P.2d 354 (Colo. 1984).

If a statute merely implies a mens rea, that mental state must be deemed to apply to every element of the offense. People v. Trevino, 826 P.2d 399 (Colo. App. 1991). But see Gorman v. People, 19 P.3d 662 (Colo. 2000).

If there is no clear intent to limit the application of the culpable mental state to a particular element of the offense, it applies to all elements of the offense. People v. Coleby, 34 P.3d 422 (Colo. 2001); People v. Hoggard, 2017 COA 88, 468 P.3d 15, aff'd, 2020 CO 54, 465 P.3d 54.

Where the statute merely implies a mens rea, subsection (2), rather than subsection (4), applies. Thus, the implied mens rea may not apply to all elements of the offense, depending on the legislature's intent in criminalizing the offense. The implied mens rea for 18-6-701, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, applies only to the defendant's actions in knowingly inducing, aiding, or encouraging a minor to violate the law, and not to whether the defendant knows the minor's age, because the intent of this offense is to protect the minor. Gorman v. People, 19 P.3d 662 (Colo. 2000).

Finding of knowing or willful conduct sufficient for recklessness. A finding of knowing or willful conduct is sufficient to establish the culpable mental state of recklessness. People v. Yanaga, 635 P.2d 925 (Colo. App. 1981).

Even if there is a logical inconsistency between acting knowingly or recklessly and acting with criminal negligence, no legal inconsistency exists based on subsection (3). By returning a guilty verdict on child abuse that required a finding of knowingly or recklessly, the jury, as a matter of law, necessarily found that the defendant had acted with criminal negligence and was guilty of child abuse that required criminal negligence. People v. Struckmeyer, 2020 CO 76, 474 P.3d 57.

Instruction errors inure to defendant's benefit. Where an instruction requires the prosecution to prove a higher degree of culpability than otherwise required by statute in relation to the various elements of the offense, any errors in the instruction inure solely to the defendant's benefit. People v. Mack, 638 P.2d 257 (Colo. 1981).

Subsection (2) inapplicable to violation of custody under 18-3-304. The language of that section requiring intent is limited to the deprivation of custody of the child, and is not extended to the additional elements of the offense. People v. Metcalf, 926 P.2d 133 (Colo. App. 1996).

Applied in People v. Frysig, 628 P.2d 1004 (Colo. 1981); People v. Andrews, 632 P.2d 1012 (Colo. 1981); People v. Noble, 635 P.2d 203 (Colo. 1981); Bollier v. People, 635 P.2d 543 (Colo. 1981); People v. Smith, 638 P.2d 1 (Colo. 1981); People v. Walker, 634 P.2d 1026 (1981); People v. Mattas, 645 P.2d 254 (Colo. 1982); People v. Hart, 658 P.2d 857 (Colo. 1983); People v. Saiz, 660 P.2d 2 (Colo. App. 1982); People v. Annan, 665 P.2d 629 (Colo. App. 1983); People v. Thompson, 756 P.2d 353 (Colo. 1988).