Peo v. Breackenridge

── Peo v. Breackenridge ── Court: Colorado Court of Appeals Date: May 07, 2026 Category: General 23CA2086 Peo v Breackenridge 05-07-2026 COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS Court of Appeals No. 23CA2086 City and County of Denver District Court No. 21CR4122 Honorable A. Bruce Jones, Judge The People of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Manuel Breackenridge, Defendant-Appellant. JUDGMENT AFFIRMED Division I Opinion by JUDGE J. JONES Lum and Meirink, JJ., concur NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e) Announced May 7, 2026 Philip J. Weiser, Attorney General, Alejandro Sorg Gonzalez, Assistant Attorney General, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellee Megan A. Ring, Colorado State Public Defender, Dilyn K. Myers, Deputy State Public Defender, Denver, Colorado, for Defendant-Appellant ¶1 Defendant, Manuel Breackenridge, appeals the judgment of conviction entered on a jury verdict finding him guilty of felony menacing. He contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction and that the district court erred by failing to suppress his incriminating statements. We disagree with both contentions and therefore affirm. I. Background ¶2 Breackenridge and J.B. leased a commercial kitchen to prepare items for their respective food businesses. The cleanliness of the kitchen had been a sore point before the underlying incident. ¶3 On the day in question, J.B. and her husband — the victim — arrived at the kitchen to find it in a state of disarray. J.B. called Breackenridge to ask him to come in and clean up the mess, and Breackenridge apologized and said he would be in later. J.B. and the victim put some things back in order and began to work in the kitchen. ¶4 When Breackenridge arrived, J.B. and the victim greeted him, but Breackenridge expressed hostility at the state of the kitchen and accused them of making the mess. A verbal altercation ensued between Breackenridge and the victim. Eventually, Breackenridge 1  removed a gun from its holster, racked the gun to load a bullet in the chamber, put the gun back in his pocket, and walked toward the victim and said, “I have a concealed carry. Don’t fuck with me.” ¶5 The People charged Breackenridge with felony menacing. At trial, Breackenridge asserted defense theories of general denial and self-defense. The jury found him guilty as charged, and the district court sentenced him to two years of probation. II. Sufficiency of the Evidence ¶6 Breackenridge argues that the prosecution failed to present sufficient evidence to prove that (1) he made a threat or physical action that placed the victim in fear of serious bodily injury; or (2) if such threat or physical action occurred, the victim was in fear of imminent serious bodily injury. We aren’t persuaded. A. Applicable Law and Standard of Review ¶7 To satisfy due process, the prosecution is required to prove all elements of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Montez v. People, 2012 CO 6, ¶ 21 (first citing U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1; and then citing Colo. Const. art. II, § 25). A person commits the crime of menacing “if, by any threat or physical action, he or she knowingly places or attempts to place another person in fear of imminent 2  serious bodily injury.” § 18-3-206, C.R.S. 2025. At the relevant time, menacing was a class 3 misdemeanor but was elevated to a felony offense if committed (a) By the use of a deadly weapon or any article used or fashioned in a manner to cause a person to reasonably believe that the article is a deadly weapon; or (b) By the person representing verbally or otherwise that he or she is armed with a