Editor’s Note: Law Week Colorado edits court opinion summaries for style and, when necessary, length.
The Colorado Supreme Court en banc unanimously affirmed a judgment connected to a firearm statute.
In March 2017, police arrested Jaron Trujillo for illegal firearm possession. A prior felony conviction and recent protection order left Trujillo ineligible to have a gun under Colorado law.
Trujillo told police the gun belonged to Sylvia Johnson and she let him borrow it — Johnson had identified Trujillo as her common law husband. Johnson was then charged for violating Colorado Revised Statute 18-12-111(1). Under that statute, anyone who knowingly purchased a firearm to transfer to a person who the transferor knows or should know is ineligible to possess a firearm commits a class 4 felony.
Two weeks before Trujillo’s arrest, Johnson and Trujillo went to a pawn shop where Johnson purchased a handgun. When Johnson returned home, she placed the gun in her closet.
Court records said although Johnson knew Trujillo couldn’t possess a gun, she told him where she put it. Johnson testified at trial she bought the gun because she was worried about her family’s safety and she told a detective on a phone call she bought it because she was particularly concerned about Trujillo’s safety when he went outside her apartment to smoke cigarettes. During the call, a recording that was admitted as an exhibit at trial, Johnson told the detective she wasn’t surprised Trujillo told police she let him use the gun for his protection.
During the trial, jurors were told to find Johnson guilty if they were convinced beyond a reasonable doubt she knowingly purchased a gun for transfer to Trujillo, a person she reasonably knew or should have known was ineligible to possess one.
During deliberations, the jurors posed two questions about the meaning of “transfer.” They asked whether there was a legal definition of “transfer.” Prosecutors suggested the court inform jurors “transfer” meant its everyday meaning. At the urging of the defense, the court referred the jury back to the original instructions, noting there wasn’t a statutory definition of “transfer.”
The jurors also asked if they could read the language from the unlawful purchase statute directly. After meeting with the parties, the court informed the jury the instruction tracked the language in the statute. Johnson was found guilty.
Johnson appealed to the Colorado Court of Appeals arguing there wasn’t sufficient evidence for her conviction because prosecutors hadn’t proven a “transfer” occurred. Johnson argued for the first time, the statute was unconstitutionally vague on its face and as applied to her because it didn’t provide adequate notice the statute prohibited her conduct.
The Court of Appeals held there was sufficient evidence to convict Johnson, holding temporary transfers are covered by the statute. The appeals court also concluded Johnson waived vagueness challenges at trial by failing to offer a definition of “transfer” in response to the jury’s request.
The Colorado Supreme Court held the term “transfer,” used in 18-12-111(1), included temporary transfers and the shared use of a firearm, and there was enough evidence to convict. The Colorado Supreme Court found Johnson didn’t waive her constitutional challenges, she forfeited them.
The Colorado Supreme Court further concluded that, because there wasn’t a legal definition of “transfer” before this opinion, any error in failing to further define the term for the jury wasn’t obvious and doesn’t warrant reversal for plain error. The appeals court judgment was affirmed.