## Facts

- David Whitaker rode as a passenger on a Greyhound bus traveling from Los Angeles to Denver, stopping in Grand Junction, Colorado.
- Police boarded the bus, questioned passengers, and focused on Whitaker after observing nervous behavior.
- Whitaker told officers he had no luggage; when shown a black bag near him, he denied owning it but said he had placed personal items inside.
- Whitaker consented to a search of the bag.
- Officers found approximately 8.8 pounds (about 4,000 grams) of methamphetamine packaged in duct-tape-wrapped bundles.
- At trial, Whitaker’s defense was lack of possession and lack of knowledge that the drugs were in the bag.
- A jury convicted Whitaker of possession with intent to distribute 1,000 grams or more of methamphetamine and found a special-offender importation allegation; he received a 20-year sentence.

## Issues

1. Whether the prosecution must prove the defendant knew the controlled substance quantity met or exceeded 1,000 grams to apply the enhanced penalty under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-18-405.
2. Whether the prosecution must prove the defendant knowingly imported the controlled substance into Colorado to apply the special-offender enhancement under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-18-407(1)(d).
3. Whether the jury instructions were erroneous for failing to apply “knowingly” to the quantity and importation determinations.

## Decision

- The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentence.
- The Court held § 18-18-405 does not require proof of a culpable mental state as to drug quantity; the prosecution need only prove the defendant knowingly committed the underlying controlled-substance offense.
- The Court held § 18-18-407(1)(d) does not require proof of a culpable mental state as to importation; importation operates as an aggravating fact for sentencing.
- The Court found no constitutional defect because the jury determined the quantity and importation facts beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Legal Principles

- When a statute separates the knowingly committed core drug offense from penalty classifications tied to drug type and amount, the quantity threshold may be treated as a sentencing determinant without an added mens rea requirement.
- A “special offender” provision that functions to increase punishment, rather than define a separate substantive crime, may impose liability for objective aggravating facts (such as importation) without requiring proof the defendant acted knowingly as to those facts.
- Facts that increase the permissible punishment must be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt; that requirement can be satisfied even if those facts do not carry an independent mens rea element.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Whitaker’s sentence by construing drug quantity and importation as penalty facts that the jury must find beyond a reasonable doubt, while rejecting any requirement that the prosecution also prove Whitaker’s knowledge of the weight threshold or the cross-border importation.


Whitaker v. People, 48 P.3d 555 (Colo. 2002)