Background
Dante Marquis Hamlet and Roman Browhaw arrived separately at a gas station. Hamlet’s codefendant, Khean Caballero, later arrived and parked beside Hamlet. After Browhaw approached them, Caballero shot Browhaw. Hamlet, standing behind Caballero, then shot Browhaw twice and continued firing as he fled in his car. Browhaw suffered eleven gunshot wounds and life-threatening injuries.
A jury convicted Hamlet of attempted first degree murder, first degree assault, and four crime-of-violence sentence enhancers. The district court imposed a forty-year prison sentence. Hamlet challenged testimony about his Mississippi arrest and possession of a drum ammunition magazine, the complicity instruction, and an instruction offering suggestions for jury deliberations.
The Court’s Holding
The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed. Testimony about Hamlet’s arrest in Mississippi was relevant both to identity—because he possessed the gun used in the shooting when arrested—and to consciousness of guilt. The evidence supported an inference that Hamlet fled the scene and went to Mississippi to avoid apprehension. The court also concluded that admitting evidence of the drum magazine was proper because it bore on identity and intent and was not unfairly prejudicial.
The court further held that the evidence supported a complicity instruction. Video and photographs showed Hamlet near Caballero when Caballero initiated the shooting, and Hamlet immediately joined in and continued firing during the escape. Finally, the deliberation instruction was not coercive: it expressly described its guidance as suggestions, encouraged jurors to hear one another out, and did not pressure them to reach a unanimous verdict.
Key Takeaways
- Possession of the gun used in a shooting at the time of arrest can be relevant evidence of the shooter’s identity.
- Coordinated conduct during an attack can supply sufficient evidence for a complicity instruction, even without proof of advance planning.
- Nonbinding jury-deliberation guidance encouraging patience and respectful discussion is not inherently coercive.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the broad evidentiary significance of post-offense possession of the crime gun and confirms that complicitor liability may rest on circumstantial evidence of contemporaneous knowledge and assistance. It also reinforces that trial courts may offer neutral deliberation guidance so long as it does not impose a result or coerce agreement.