¶ 7 The court instructed the jury on first degree murder after deliberation and the lesser included offenses of second degree murder, reckless manslaughter, and criminally negligent homicide. He then threatened to kill defendant and his family if defendant did not return with the money to pay his debt, gave defendant a shotgun, and had a friend drive defendant to the convenience store. He told defendant to go “do a lick,” which defendant understood as slang for committing a robbery. Later that night, the GKI member to whom defendant owed the money again confronted defendant about the debt. Defendant's family was also at the apartment. ¶ 6 The next day, the GKI members took defendant to his apartment, where they were joined by other friends and began drinking. Several GKI members then assaulted defendant, knocking him unconscious. Once there, the gang member confronted defendant about the debt and threatened to kill his family if it was not repaid. Defendant said that two days before the convenience store incident, the gang member came to his apartment and ordered defendant to accompany him to another GKI member's house. ¶ 5 At the trial, defendant testified that he had owed approximately $1,500 to a member of the Gallant Knights Insane (GKI) gang. ¶ 4 Defendant was subsequently arrested and charged with first degree murder after deliberation, first degree felony murder, attempted aggravated robbery, two counts of being an accessory to a crime, and two crime of violence counts. As the clerk turned and began walking away, defendant shot and killed her. As the clerk handed defendant the cigarettes, defendant pulled out a shotgun and pointed it at the clerk. The video, which has no sound, showed that defendant entered the store and, apparently, asked the clerk for a pack of cigarettes. The store's video surveillance camera recorded the incident. ¶ 3 The charges against defendant arose from a December 2006 shooting at a convenience store. As a matter of first impression, we hold that if the prosecution proves each element of the predicate offense beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury need not necessarily convict the defendant of the predicate offense to convict him of felony murder. ¶ 2 Among other issues, we consider the validity of a jury verdict finding a defendant guilty of felony murder but not guilty, based solely on a duress defense, of the predicate offense. ¶ 1 Defendant, John Andrew Doubleday, appeals from the judgment of conviction entered on jury verdicts finding him guilty of first degree felony murder and second degree murder. Kratz, Deputy Public Defender, Denver, Colorado, for Defendant–Appellant. Wilson, Colorado State Public Defender, Alan M. Fuerst, III, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff–Appellee. John Andrew DOUBLEDAY, Defendant–Appellant. The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff–Appellee, v.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |