Jefferson County District Court No. 13CR2847 Honorable
Stephen M. Munsinger, Judge
Cynthia H. Coffman, Attorney General, Grant R. Fevurly,
Assistant Attorney General, Denver, Colorado, for
A. Ring, Colorado State Public Defender, Anne T. Amicarella,
Deputy State Public Defender, Denver, Colorado, for
1 Defendant, Floyd Sandoval, appeals the judgment of
conviction entered on jury verdicts finding him guilty of
felony murder, aggravated robbery, and
menacing. We affirm.
2 He contends that the trial court violated his
constitutional right to due process when it declined to
instruct the jury in accordance with Rosemond v. United
States, 572 U.S. 65 (2014), that an alleged felony
murder complicitor must know in advance of the occurrence of
the predicate felony that another participant intends to
commit. We conclude that Rosemond does not apply to
Colorado's complicity statute. Sandoval also asserts the
trial court violated his constitutional rights to a fair
trial and impartial jury when it allowed the prosecutor to
use a partial reconstruction of the crime scene as a
demonstrative aid, and the prosecutor committed misconduct by
misstating the law of complicity as well as key evidence to
undermine the defense.
3 On October 17, 2013, Alicia Brown had agreed to sell her
friend, John Goggin, five pounds of marijuana, which he
intended to sell to Sandoval. Before Sandoval's arrival,
Brown delivered two boxes containing the marijuana to the
small, detached garage next to New Age Medical marijuana
dispensary where Goggin and his girlfriend resided. The boxes
were left inside with Goggin's girlfriend while Brown and
Goggin waited outside for Sandoval.
4 Sandoval arrived carrying a satchel over his shoulder,
accompanied by his cousin, Jose Palacios. Sandoval asked if
Palacios could join them in the garage, stating that he was
also involved in the deal. Goggin did not object, so the four
of them entered the garage where Goggin's girlfriend sat
on the far edge of the bed.
5 What took place in the garage is disputed, but the
prosecution relied on the following evidence to support its
case against Sandoval. Once inside the garage, Sandoval asked
Palacios to close the door to the garage. Sandoval pulled
money from his satchel and Goggin responded to Sandoval by
stating the price for the marijuana. Sandoval then reached
inside his satchel, and pulled out a revolver, which he
pointed at Goggin and said, "Don't say
anything." Simultaneously, Palacios pushed Brown to the
ground and held her down with a gun pointed at her head.
Goggin retrieved his gun from the bed, at which point
Palacios and Sandoval told Goggin to surrender the marijuana.
Goggin and Sandoval struggled as they each attempted to grab
the other's hand. During the chaos, four shots were
fired, and Palacios released Brown as he rushed to Goggin.
Palacios held Goggin down until he stopped breathing, he then
grabbed the marijuana and ran to the car where Sandoval was
6 Sandoval and Palacios sped away, and shortly thereafter,
Sandoval was treated at St. Anthony's North hospital for
a leg injury.
7 Goggin sustained three bullet wounds, and a forensic
pathologist determined that the fatal shot to his abdomen was
fired from a gun held between six and thirty-six inches away
from him. Cell phone records uncovered by investigators
showed multiple phone calls between Sandoval and Palacios
before their arrival at Goggin's residence.
8 Sandoval stood trial for six counts ― one count of
murder in the first degree, two counts of aggravated robbery,
two counts of accessory to crime, and one count of felony
menacing. A lesser non-included count of conspiracy to commit
distribution of marijuana was added by the trial court, at
Sandoval's request. At trial, Sandoval argued that he did
not intend to rob or kill Goggin; therefore, he was not
guilty of first degree murder. Further, he contended that he
did not know Palacios intended to rob or kill Goggin. The
jury found Sandoval guilty of all charges except for one
charge of aggravated robbery, and he was sentenced to life
without the possibility of parole in the custody of the
Department of Corrections.
9 Sandoval contends that the trial court violated his right
to due process by failing to extend the holding in
Rosemond - requiring an alleged complicitor to have
known that the other participant intended to commit the
predicate felony before its commission - to Colorado's
complicity statute. Sandoval alleges that, because he was
unaware of Palacios's intent to rob and kill Goggin
before the crimes occurred, he is not guilty of robbery and
felony murder. We disagree.
10 At trial, Sandoval tendered a jury instruction based on
Rosemond, which stated as follows:
An individual cannot be found guilty to a crime based on the
actions of another after the crime is committed. However, an
individual who becomes aware of a crime after its commission
and renders assistance may be criminally liable for the crime
of Accessory as defined in Instructions and .
trial court declared that this proffered instruction was
clear as to complicity, but it rejected Sandoval's
proposed instruction and provided the jury with the following
Complicity is not a separate crime. Rather, it is a legal
theory by which one person may be found guilty of a criminal
offense that was committed in whole or in part by another
To be found guilty as a complicitor, the prosecution must
prove each of the following circumstances beyond a reasonable
1. A robbery must have been committed.
2. Another person must have committed all or part of the