The summaries of the Colorado Court of Appeals published opinions
constitute no part of the opinion of the division but have been prepared by
the division for the convenience of the reader. The summaries may not be
cited or relied upon as they are not the official language of the division.
Any discrepancy between the language in the summary and in the opinion
should be resolved in favor of the language in the opinion.
SUMMARY
January 30, 2025
2025COA12
No. 24CA0347, People v. Hill — Crimes — First Degree
Criminal Trespass — Unlawful Entry by Ruse, Trickery, or
Deception
A division of the court of appeals holds that, if a person
secures permission to enter a dwelling by means of ruse, trickery,
or deception, the person enters “unlawfully” for purposes of first
degree criminal trespass, § 18-4-502(1)(a), C.R.S. 2024.
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2025COA12
Court of Appeals No. 24CA0347
Mesa County District Court No. 22CR829
Honorable Brian J. Flynn, Judge
The People of the State of Colorado,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Kenneth Maurice Hill,
Defendant-Appellee.
RULING DISAPPROVED
Division II
Opinion by JUDGE LUM
Fox and Gomez, JJ., concur
Announced January 30, 2025
Daniel P. Rubinstein, District Attorney, Susan Manown, Deputy District
Attorney, Grand Junction, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellant
Andrew Sidley-MacKie, Alternate Defense Counsel, Fort Collins, Colorado, for
Defendant-Appellee
¶1 Defendant, Kenneth Maurice Hill, was charged with first
degree criminal trespass. The People appeal the district court’s
ruling granting Hill’s motion for judgment of acquittal. See § 16-12-
102(1), C.R.S. 2024 (“The prosecution may appeal any decision of a
court in a criminal case upon any question of law.”).
¶2 As a matter of first impression, we conclude that, if a person
secures permission to enter a dwelling by means of a ruse, trickery,
or deception, the person enters “unlawfully” for purposes of first
degree criminal trespass, § 18-4-502(1)(a), C.R.S. 2024. Because
the evidence presented at trial was sufficient for a reasonable juror
to conclude that Hill was guilty of the trespass charge beyond a
reasonable doubt, we disapprove the district court’s ruling granting
Hill’s motion for judgment of acquittal. See Crim. P. 29 (“The
court . . . shall order the entry of a judgment of acquittal . . . after
the evidence on either side is closed, if the evidence is insufficient to
sustain a conviction of such offense . . . .”).
I. Background
¶3 At trial, the prosecution presented evidence that would have
permitted the jury to find the following facts:
1
¶4 Hill, bail bondsman employed by a bond company, was tasked
with apprehending Jose Madrid, who had a number of outstanding
warrants for his arrest. Hill tracked Madrid to an apartment leased
by Madrid’s brother. The apartment was located within an
apartment complex owned by Perry Properties.
¶5 At the complex’s leasing office, Hill spoke with a property
manager, a leasing specialist, and a maintenance technician, all of
whom were Perry Properties employees (collectively, the Perry
employees). Hill wore tactical gear, including a vest with insignias
that identified him as a “fugitive recovery agent” for an unspecified
“warrant division.” He told the Perry employees that he had
warrants for Madrid’s arrest and that he had “pinged” Madrid at the
apartment’s location. He requested permission to enter Madrid’s
brother’s apartment to take Madrid into custody.
¶6 The Perry employees didn’t ask to see Hill’s badge or
paperwork, but they all assumed that he was a member of a police
department or other law enforcement agency. Based on this
assumption, the property manager gave Hill permission to enter
and directed the maintenance technician to open the apartment for
Hill.
2
¶7 Once inside the apartment, Hill confronted Madrid, and
Madrid pointed a gun out the apartment’s front door. Hill backed
out and fired his gun. The shot passed close to the maintenance
technician, but it didn’t hit anyone.
¶8 After the prosecution’s case-in-chief, Hill moved for a
judgment of acquittal due to insufficient evidence. The district
court granted the motion, reasoning that, because Hill had
permission to enter the apartment, a reasonable juror could not
find that Hill had unlawfully entered the apartment or that he knew
his entry was unlawful. The court further explained that Hill’s
appearance and the Perry employees’ impression that he was in law
enforcement were irrelevant because Hill “did not identify himself as
a law enforcement officer,” his clothing didn’t “identif[y] him[] as a
law enforcement officer,” and “the burden falls on the property
manager . . . to [determine] as to whether or not someone is a law
enforcement officer.”
¶9 On appeal, the People contend that the district court erred by
(1) misinterpreting the mens rea requirement for criminal trespass
and (2) concluding that there was insufficient evidence to support
the criminal trespass charge.
3
II. Generally Applicable Law
¶ 10 “A person commits the crime of first degree criminal trespass if
such person . . . [k]nowingly and unlawfully enters or remains in a
dwelling of another.” § 18-4-502(1)(a). A person acts knowingly
“when he is aware that his conduct is of such nature or that such
circumstance exists.” § 18-1-501(6), C.R.S. 2024.
III. Mens Rea
¶ 11 The People contend that the district court improperly applied
the mental state “knowingly” to both the “entry” and “unlawful”
elements of first degree criminal trespass. They argue that, to
convict Hill under section 18-4-502(1), the jury only needed to find
that he knowingly entered into the apartment; it didn’t need to find
that Hill knew his entry was unlawful.
¶ 12 Relying on Oram v. People, 255 P.3d 1032 (Colo. 2011), and
People v. Walden,
224 P.3d 369 (Colo. App. 2009), Hill contends
that section 18-4-502(1) imposes criminal liability only if a
defendant knows their entry is unlawful. See Oram,
255 P.3d at
1038 (noting that the second degree burglary statute requires “that
the defendant knew [their] entry was unlawful”); Walden,
224 P.3d
at 379 (“[T]he prosecution was already required to prove beyond a
4
reasonable doubt that defendant had knowingly entered the victim’s
apartment without permission.”).
¶ 13 We need not resolve this dispute, however. Assuming, without
deciding, that the prosecution needed to prove that Hill knew his
entry was unlawful, we conclude there was sufficient evidence for
the case to have been submitted to the jury.
IV. Unlawful Entry
¶ 14 Before we review the sufficiency of the evidence, we first
examine the threshold legal question of whether Hill’s entry could
be considered unlawful even though he had obtained the Perry
employees’ permission to enter.
¶ 15 Hill asserts (and the People don’t dispute) that a “person
‘enters unlawfully’ or ‘remains unlawfully’ in or upon premises
when the person is not licensed, invited, or otherwise privileged to
do so.” § 18-4-201(3), C.R.S. 2024.1 The parties further agree that
1 The first degree criminal trespass statute describes the element
“unlawfully enters,” § 18-4-502(1)(a), C.R.S. 2024, but the
definitional statute describes the element “enters unlawfully,” § 18-
4-201(3), C.R.S. 2024. As best we can discern from the record and
the briefing, the parties agree that the definition of “enters
unlawfully” in section 18-4-201(3) applies to first degree criminal
trespass despite the slight wording difference.
5
the evidence reflects that Hill was given permission to enter the
apartment by employees who were authorized to give it. The parties
also seem to agree, at least implicitly, that obtaining such
permission would ordinarily render the entry lawful. Nevertheless,
the People contend that Hill’s entry was unlawful to the extent that
he secured permission to enter by causing the employees to believe
(wrongly) that he was a member of law enforcement. We agree.
¶ 16 A division of this court has already concluded that unlawful
entry includes “gaining entry to . . . the premises by way of ruse,
trickery, or deception.” People v. Burke, 937 P.2d 886, 890 (Colo.
App. 1996). (While Burke analyzed unlawful entry in the context of
first degree burglary,
id., we see no reason to deviate from that
analysis when determining whether an entry is unlawful in the
context of first degree criminal trespass.) And as the division noted,
courts in other jurisdictions have reached similar conclusions.
Id.
at 890-91; see State v. Zembreski,
138 A.3d 583, 594 (N.J. Super.
Ct. App. Div. 2016) (“To the extent it can be argued [the victim] did
allow defendant in, the invitation did not constitute a license, as it
was based upon defendant’s use of deception.”); State v. Newton,
755 S.E.2d 786, 789 (Ga. 2014) (“[C]onsent to enter that is given
6
based on a fraud or deceit perpetrated by the defendant is an
unauthorized entry for the purposes of [entering or remaining in a
dwelling without authority].”); State v. Maxwell, 672 P.2d 590, 593-
94 (Kan. 1983) (“[W]here the consent to enter . . . is obtained by
fraud, deceit or pretense the entry is not an authorized entry under
the statute . . . .”); People v. Singer,
994 N.Y.S.2d 105, 106 (App.
Div. 2014) (considering defendant’s deception used to gain access to
an apartment when determining whether the evidence was
sufficient to show that defendant wasn’t licensed to enter and knew
her entry was an unlawful trespass).
¶ 17 We are persuaded by the reasoning in these cases and
conclude that, if there was sufficient evidence for a jury to find that
Hill gained entry by means of a ruse, trickery, or deception, the jury
could conclude that his entry was unlawful.
V. Sufficiency
¶ 18 We now consider whether there was sufficient evidence for a
jury to find that (1) Hill gained entry by means of a ruse, trickery, or
deception; and (2) Hill knew his entry was unlawful. We conclude
that there was.
7
A. Standard of Review
¶ 19 We review de novo a district court’s ruling on a motion for a
judgment of acquittal for insufficient evidence. Montes-Rodriguez v.
People, 241 P.3d 924, 927 (Colo. 2010). Whether a motion for a
judgment of acquittal should be granted is determined by the
substantial evidence test. People v. Gonzales,
666 P.2d 123, 127
(Colo. 1983). “Under this test, we ask whether the evidence, ‘viewed
as a whole and in the light most favorable to the prosecution, is
substantial and sufficient to support a conclusion by a reasonable
mind that the defendant is guilty of the charge beyond a reasonable
doubt.’” Gorostieta v. People,
2022 CO 41, ¶ 16 (quoting People v.
Harrison,
2020 CO 57, ¶ 32). “[W]e must ‘give the prosecution the
benefit of every reasonable inference which might be fairly drawn
from the evidence.’”
Id. at ¶ 17 (quoting Harrison, ¶ 32).
B. Sufficiency Analysis
¶ 20 The evidence presented at trial would have permitted the jury
to find the following additional facts:
• Hill wore a tactical, bulletproof vest and carried
ammunition, several less-than-lethal devices, a firearm, and
handcuffs. A device resembling a handheld radio was hung
8
over Hill’s shoulder. One employee testified that the gear
made Hill look like a SWAT team member.
• Hill’s vest had insignias on the front and back with three
lines of yellow text that read “Fugitive Recovery / AGENT /
Warrant Division.” The insignias did not refer to the bond
company Hill worked for.
• Hill had a badge on the front of his vest. The Perry
employees didn’t get a close look at the badge and didn’t
know what wording it contained.
• Hill had a blue and white patch on his left shoulder. The
patch was in a shape commonly used by police and other
law enforcement agencies, and it contained an eagle or
similar symbol.
• Hill did not identify himself as a bail bondsman. While
holding up a file folder containing papers, he said only that
he had a warrant for Madrid’s arrest.
• Without explaining what authority he had to do so, Hill said
that he would kick in the door to the apartment if he was
not granted permission to enter. Though his tone of voice
9
was light, the Perry employees were concerned he would
kick the door down if not allowed inside.
• The Perry employees all believed that Hill was a law
enforcement officer based on his appearance, and they gave
Hill permission to enter because it was the company’s policy
to cooperate with law enforcement.
• The employees would not have let Hill into the apartment if
they had known he was a bail bondsman.
¶ 21 Viewing the evidence together and in the light most favorable
to the prosecution, see id. at ¶ 16, the jury could reasonably have
inferred that Hill used his clothing and manner as a way to deceive
the Perry employees into believing he was a law enforcement officer
to obtain their permission and assistance to enter the apartment.
Accordingly, there was sufficient evidence for the jury to infer that
Hill’s entry was unlawful because he obtained his authorization to
enter by means of “ruse, trickery, or deception.” Burke, 937 P.2d at
890.
¶ 22 Still, Hill argues that a jury could not have found any
deception because (1) he never made any affirmative statement that
he was in law enforcement; (2) his clothing didn’t explicitly “claim[]
10
any association with any law enforcement agency”; (3) his clothing
was also consistent with that of private security guards; and (4) the
Perry employees didn’t ask for a closer look at Hill’s credentials but
instead jumped to the “unjustified conclusion” that he was a law
enforcement officer. We reject the arguments that the Perry
employees’ conclusions were “unjustified” and that Hill needed to
make affirmative verbal or written misrepresentations for a jury to
reasonably infer that he used deception to gain entry. As described
above, the way Hill presented himself — as an armed “agent,”
seemingly carrying police gear and displaying insignias and other
symbols strongly resembling those used by governmental
organizations, while saying he was there to “arrest” somebody and
that he would kick in the door if he wasn’t allowed access — so
strongly evoked a law enforcement officer that a juror could
reasonably infer an intentional deception, particularly given Hill’s
failure to identify himself as a bail bondsman. Hill’s assertions that
private security guards may dress in a similar manner and that the
Perry employees could have been more vigilant don’t make such
inferences unreasonable, and we must give the prosecution the
11
benefit of all reasonable inferences that may fairly be drawn from
the evidence. See Gorostieta, ¶ 16.
¶ 23 We also conclude that there was sufficient evidence to show
that Hill knew his entry was unlawful.
¶ 24 A detective testified that, after the incident, Hill said he
“understood that he needed permission from somebody . . . that’s
authorized to enter th[e] apartment.”2 And because jurors could
have reasonably inferred that Hill used his clothing and manner to
trick the Perry employees into believing he was a law enforcement
officer, they could also have reasonably inferred that he was aware
the employees wouldn’t have granted such permission unless they
believed he was a law enforcement officer. See Oram, 255 P.3d at
1038 (holding that evidence was sufficient to show that bondsmen
knew their entry into a residence was unlawful because they used a
ruse — pretending they were in law enforcement — as part of their
efforts to gain entry); cf. People v. Ridenour,
878 P.2d 23, 26 (Colo.
App. 1994) (“[T]he defendant’s use of a pretense in order to gain [a]
2 Hill did not argue at trial — and does not argue on appeal — that
he could lawfully enter the apartment without permission.
12
ticket taker’s permission to enter [an] office indicates that he was
aware that it was not open to the public.”).
¶ 25 For these reasons, we conclude that the district court erred by
ruling that there wasn’t sufficient evidence to submit the matter to
the jury and granting the judgment of acquittal. Though Hill can’t
be retried, see People v. Galang, 2016 COA 68, ¶ 40 n.7, we
disapprove of the court’s ruling.
VI. Disposition
¶ 26 The district court’s ruling granting the judgment of acquittal is
disapproved.
JUDGE FOX and JUDGE GOMEZ concur.
13
