Peo v. Spain

── Peo v. Spain ── Court: Colorado Court of Appeals Date: June 04, 2026 Category: General 23CA1123 Peo v Spain 06-04-2026 COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS Court of Appeals No. 23CA1123 City and County of Denver District Court No. 22CR770 Honorable Ericka F.H. Englert, Judge The People of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cameron T. Spain, Defendant-Appellant. JUDGMENT AFFIRMED Division V Opinion by JUDGE YUN Lipinsky and Schutz, JJ., concur NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e) Announced June 4, 2026 Philip J. Weiser, Attorney General, Carmen Moraleda, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellee Megan A. Ring, Colorado State Public Defender, James S. Hardy, Deputy State Public Defender, Denver, Colorado, for Defendant-Appellant ¶1 Cameron T. Spain appeals the judgment of conviction entered after a jury found him guilty of first degree murder. He contends that the district court (1) violated his due process rights by improperly instructing the jury on reasonable doubt and (2) erroneously excluded evidence concerning the victim’s toxicology report. We affirm. I. Background ¶2 The jury heard evidence that would support the following facts. ¶3 Spain shot the victim five times near the RV where Spain was living. The below diagram illustrates the number and location of the victim’s gunshot wounds: 1  The forensic pathologist testified that the victim died of gunshot wounds to the torso and the manner of death was homicide. ¶4 Police identified Spain as the shooter based on leads obtained at a nearby Salvation Army shelter, surveillance video from nearby businesses, and data from the ankle monitor that Spain wore at the time. The video footage of the shooting is blurry, with the figures appearing small and indistinct. However, one figure can be seen backing away, after which another figure wearing a headlamp fires a handgun at the retreating person. Video footage from a different camera shows a figure wearing a headlamp riding away from the scene on a bicycle. ¶5 Five days after the shooting, police found Spain at his RV. They observed no injuries to his face — no scratches, cuts, bruises, or other signs of injury. Police recovered a headlamp from the RV and a knife wrapped with yarn or string at the crime scene. The victim’s “DNA was on the knife,” which was found “right next to his clothing and where he went down on the ground.” ¶6 After his arrest, Spain told his cellmate he shot the victim after a drug deal went bad, saying that he became angry because the victim “said something or did something funny.” Spain also claimed 2  the victim struck him with a padlock on a chain before the shooting. (Police did not find a chain or padlock — other than the padlock on Spain’s RV — at the crime scene.) Spain told his cellmate he had used a .45 caliber firearm that he later sold. He also said that after the shooting, he fled on his bicycle, called his girlfriend, and met her in an alley, where she advised him to burn his clothes. ¶7 At trial, defense counsel did not dispute that Spain was the shooter and asserted a self-defense theory. Defense counsel argued that the victim struck Spain in the face and threatened him with a knife. However, no testimony or other evidence indicated that the victim used a knife. At defense counsel’s request, the court instructed the jury on the self-defense theory. The jury rejected this defense and convicted Spain of first degree murder after deliberation. ¶8 Spain now appeals. II. Jury Instructions ¶9 Spain contends that the district court reversibly erred by giving the 2022 model criminal jury instruction on reasonable