## Facts

- Adrian Enrique Sanchez attended an overnight party at a campground with about thirty people.
- During the night, R.M. left his tent and saw Sanchez standing outside R.M.’s boss’s Jeep while another man, C.R., was inside the Jeep.
- When R.M. approached, he saw C.R. holding a camera that belonged to R.M.’s boss; R.M. angrily accused Sanchez and C.R. of stealing and told them to get out.
- Sanchez responded with statements including “We’re ready for this” and “You don’t want to do this.”
- A struggle followed, and Sanchez stabbed R.M. in the chest with a folding knife.
- As events continued, Sanchez stabbed D.C. in the back while D.C. struggled with C.R., and stabbed S.P., an onlooker, in the neck.
- R.M. and D.C. survived; S.P. died from the neck wound.
- Sanchez ran from the campground; police later found him hiding in a trailer.
- A jury convicted Sanchez of first-degree murder after deliberation, two counts of attempted first-degree murder after deliberation, first-degree assault under heat of passion, and second-degree assault under heat of passion.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the “after deliberation” element for first-degree murder and attempted first-degree murder.
2. Whether the attempted first-degree murder verdicts were legally inconsistent with the jury’s special findings that Sanchez committed first- and second-degree assault under heat of passion.
3. Whether the attempted first-degree murder verdicts were legally inconsistent with the jury’s guilty verdicts on the heat-of-passion assault counts.
4. Whether the trial court erred by giving a flight instruction based on Sanchez’s leaving the scene and later concealment.

## Decision

- The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of conviction.
- The court held the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find intent after deliberation for first-degree murder and the two attempted first-degree murder counts.
- The court rejected Sanchez’s inconsistency arguments, concluding the verdicts did not require reversal under Colorado law.
- The court held the flight instruction was supported by evidence that Sanchez fled and concealed himself, and the instruction properly left the weight of that evidence to the jury.

## Legal Principles

- In reviewing the denial of a judgment of acquittal, an appellate court considers whether the evidence (direct and circumstantial), viewed as a whole and in the light most favorable to the prosecution, is sufficient to allow a reasonable factfinder to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
- “After deliberation” may be proved by circumstantial evidence and does not require a long period of time; reflection can occur in a short interval.
- A defendant’s statements before the act, the manner and sequence of using a deadly weapon, the targeting of vital areas, and conduct after the act may support an inference of deliberation and intent.
- Alleged inconsistency between verdicts generally is not grounds for reversal where each conviction is supported by sufficient evidence and the jury was correctly instructed.
- A heat-of-passion finding on an assault count does not automatically negate deliberation for a separate attempted-murder count arising from the same incident.
- A flight instruction is permissible when there is evidence the defendant fled or hid in a manner that could be seen as avoiding apprehension; the instruction may allow jurors to consider flight as one fact among others on guilt.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed Sanchez’s convictions, concluding that the jury could reasonably find deliberation from Sanchez’s words and actions during the confrontation and his conduct afterward, that the asserted inconsistencies between attempted-murder and heat-of-passion assault determinations did not warrant reversal, and that the flight instruction was supported by evidence of fleeing and concealment.


People v. Sanchez, 253 P.3d 1260 (2010)