## Facts

- Nathan Hall, a former competitive ski racer and ski-resort employee, skied on Vail Mountain down a steep, bumpy slope at high speed.
- Witnesses described Hall as off-balance and out of control for a considerable distance, being thrown from mogul to mogul.
- Hall flew off a knoll and collided with Allen Cobb, who was traversing below; Cobb suffered traumatic brain injuries and died.
- The prosecution charged Hall with reckless manslaughter under Colorado law for recklessly causing Cobb’s death.
- At the preliminary hearing, the county court found Hall was skiing too fast for conditions but dismissed the felony for lack of probable cause, concluding the conduct did not meet the required level of dangerousness.
- The district court affirmed, reasoning recklessness required that death be “more likely than not” to result and concluding skiing too fast was not likely to cause death.
- The Colorado Supreme Court granted review of the recklessness standard and the probable-cause dismissal.

## Issues

1. Under Colorado’s statutory definition of “recklessly,” must the risk of death be “more likely than not” for the risk to be “substantial and unjustifiable”?
2. Applying the correct recklessness standard and the preliminary-hearing probable-cause standard, was there sufficient evidence to bind Hall over for trial on reckless manslaughter?

## Decision

- The court reversed the district court and remanded with directions to reinstate the reckless manslaughter charge and bind Hall over for trial.
- The court held that a particular result (death) need not be “more likely than not” to occur for the risk to be substantial and unjustifiable.
- The court held that conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk may be proven by circumstantial evidence and inferred from the actor’s experience, training, and the surrounding circumstances.
- Viewing the evidence and inferences in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the court concluded probable cause existed that Hall acted recklessly, making dismissal at the preliminary hearing improper.

## Legal Principles

- Recklessness in Colorado requires conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk; “substantial and unjustifiable” is not limited to risks exceeding a 50% probability.
- Whether a risk is substantial and unjustifiable is assessed by considering both the likelihood of harm and the magnitude of harm if it occurs, and whether disregarding the risk is a gross deviation from reasonable care.
- Subjective awareness (“conscious disregard”) may be inferred from circumstantial evidence, including the defendant’s knowledge, experience, and what a similarly situated reasonable person would have understood.
- At a preliminary hearing, probable cause exists if a reasonably prudent and cautious person could believe the defendant committed the offense; courts must view evidence and draw inferences in the prosecution’s favor and should not resolve close factual questions better left to the trier of fact.

## Conclusion

The Colorado Supreme Court rejected a probability threshold for recklessness, clarified that substantial risk turns on both chance and severity of harm, and held that the evidence permitted an inference of conscious disregard; applying the proper probable-cause standard, it reinstated the reckless manslaughter charge for trial.


People v. Hall, 999 P.2d 207 (Colo. 2000)