People v. Claycomb

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
April 3, 2025

2025COA36

No. 23CA1112, People v. Claycomb — Criminal Law — Jury
Instructions — Definitional Instructions — Proximate Cause —
Instructions Regarding Continued Deliberation

For the first time in a reported case, a division of the court of

appeals concludes that when the jury asks for a definition of

“proximate cause” and that phrase is used in the jury instructions,

the trial court must provide a definition. However, the division

concludes that the error created by the trial court’s failure to

provide such an instruction was harmless in this case.

The division also addresses, for the first time in a reported

Colorado case, the court’s submission of a question to the jury near

the end of the business day about the status of its deliberations and

providing various options for future deliberations. Although the

division cautions against the potential dangers of making such an
inquiry, it concludes that the trial court did not err by doing so in

this instance.
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2025COA36

Court of Appeals No. 23CA1112
Boulder County District Court No. 21CR311
Honorable Patrick Butler, Judge

The People of the State of Colorado,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

Hunter Claycomb,

Defendant-Appellant.

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED

Division VI
Opinion by JUDGE SCHUTZ
Welling and Kuhn, JJ., concur

Announced April 3, 2025

Philip J. Weiser, Attorney General, William G. Kozeliski, Senior Assistant
Attorney General, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Springer and Steinberg, P.C, Harvey A. Steinberg, Stephen M. Burstein,
Taylor Ivy, Denver, Colorado, for Defendant-Appellant
¶1 Defendant, Hunter Claycomb, appeals the judgment of

conviction entered on jury verdicts finding him guilty of careless

driving resulting in death and speeding. As a matter of first

impression, we conclude that, when a jury asks for the definition of

“proximate cause” and that phrase is used in the jury instructions,

the trial court must provide the definition. We also address for the

first time the use of a “getting close to 5” jury instruction. Although

we caution against the potential dangers of such an instruction, we

conclude that the trial court did not err by using it in this instance.

We affirm Claycomb’s conviction.

I. Background

¶2 The Colorado State Patrol (CSP) responded to a two-vehicle

collision that occurred at an intersection in Boulder County. The

CSP determined that the two vehicles involved were a sedan driven

by Claycomb and a truck driven by Robert Melanson, who was

accompanied by his wife, Cindi Melanson.

¶3 A CSP trooper observed that the two vehicles, located in the

center median, were badly burned and there were “tire marks or

skid marks” on the road. Based on an accident reconstruction, the

trooper concluded that Claycomb had been driving over 100 miles

1
per hour in an area with a posted speed limit of 65 miles per hour

when Melanson accelerated from a stop sign into the intersection.

The trooper further concluded that Claycomb “impacted Mr.

Melanson’s vehicle at 96 miles per hour, sending both vehicles

rolling southbound an unknown number of times before coming to

rest in the center median,” and that “Mr. Melanson and his wife

Cindi Melanson were ejected from their vehicle and killed.”

¶4 Claycomb was charged with two counts of vehicular homicide,

one count of reckless driving, one count of speeding, and one count

of violation of bond conditions that was later dismissed.

¶5 At trial, the CSP trooper, a second expert for the prosecution,

and a defense expert testified regarding their analyses of and

conclusions as to what occurred leading to the collision. The three

experts reached slightly different conclusions based on highly

technical calculations.

¶6 In closing argument, the prosecutor argued that Claycomb

“plowed down the [highway] going 105 to 117 miles per hour and

T-boned the [truck],” proximately causing the Melansons’ deaths.

¶7 The theory of defense was that the Melansons’ truck “was the

proximate cause of the accident as it left a place of safety behind a

2
stop sign, accelerating at full speed through the intersection, and

taking the right of way from Mr. Claycomb.”

¶8 Claycomb requested that the trial court instruct the jury on

the lesser included offense of careless driving, define the culpable

mental state for careless driving, and give an intervening cause

instruction. The court gave the careless driving elemental

instruction, but it declined to define the mental state for careless

driving or give an intervening cause instruction.

¶9 Approximately one and a half hours into deliberations, the

jury simultaneously asked two questions relating to how long it had

to deliberate. In a written response, the trial court instructed the

jury to continue deliberating.

¶ 10 Later, the jury asked the trial court to provide a definition of

“proximate cause.” Over defense counsel’s objection, the court

referred the jury back to the original instructions and directed it to

use the common meaning of the undefined terms in the

instructions.

¶ 11 At approximately 4:45 p.m., the trial court gave the jury what

it called a “getting close to 5 instruction,” asking the jury to indicate

whether it (1) wanted to break for the day and resume deliberations

3
on Monday; (2) was close to reaching a verdict and wanted to

continue deliberating until 5:30 p.m.; or (3) had reached a verdict.

Upon receipt of the court’s inquiry, the jury asked the court: “Do we

have to come back on Monday even if we make a decision by 5:30?”

The court responded: “No. If you reach a verdict by 5:30, you will

not have to come back on Monday.” The jury chose to continue

deliberating and reached a verdict just before 5:30 p.m.

¶ 12 The jury found Claycomb guilty of careless driving resulting in

death and speeding at least twenty-five miles per hour over the

limit.

II. Discussion

¶ 13 Claycomb contends that his conviction for careless driving

resulting in death should be reversed because the trial court failed

to properly instruct the jury on the law. Specifically, he argues that

the trial court (1) failed to define the culpable mental state required

for careless driving; (2) improperly rejected his proposed intervening

cause instruction; (3) failed to define “proximate cause” for the jury;

and (4) erred by instructing the jury to continue deliberating

without first inquiring about the status of its deliberations.

4
A. Standards of Review and Reversal

¶ 14 A trial court has a duty to properly instruct the jury on the

applicable law. People v. Jones, 2018 COA 112, ¶ 24. We review de

novo whether the trial court’s instructions, read as a whole,

correctly instructed the jury on the controlling law. Tibbels v.

People, 2022 CO 1, ¶ 22. But we review “a trial court’s decision to

give, or not to give, a particular jury instruction for an abuse of

discretion.” People v. Payne, 2019 COA 167, ¶ 16. A court abuses

its discretion when its ruling is manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable,

or unfair, or it is based on a misunderstanding or misapplication of

the law. People v. Knapp, 2020 COA 107, ¶ 31.

¶ 15 We generally review preserved claims of instructional error for

nonconstitutional harmless error, reversing only if the error

substantially influenced the verdict or affected the fairness of the

trial proceedings. People v. Koper, 2018 COA 137, ¶ 9.

¶ 16 However, when a trial court improperly instructs a jury on an

element of an offense, “either by omitting or misdescribing that

element,” we review for constitutional harmless error. Griego v.

People, 19 P.3d 1, 8 (Colo. 2001). “A constitutional error is

harmless when the reviewing court is confident beyond a

5
reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the verdict

obtained.” Id. at 8-9.

B. Applicable Law

¶ 17 As relevant here, a person commits careless driving when they

“drive[] a motor vehicle . . . in a careless and imprudent manner,

without due regard for the width, grade, curves, corners, traffic, and

use of the streets and highways and all other attendant

circumstances.” § 42-4-1402(1), C.R.S. 2024.

C. The Culpable Mental State for Careless Driving

¶ 18 Claycomb contends that the trial court reversibly erred by

failing to instruct the jury on the meaning of “without due regard”

as used in the careless driving elemental instruction. He argues

that his proposed instruction was necessary to avoid confusing the

jury because “reckless” was the only mental state defined in the

instructions. We disagree.

1. Additional Facts

¶ 19 Claycomb’s proposed instruction identifying the culpable

mental state of careless driving as “without due regard” and

defining that phrase read as follows:

6
Careless Driving is committed when the
defendant has committed a voluntary act
prohibited by law accompanied by a culpable
mental state. Voluntary act means an act
performed consciously as a result of effort or
determination. The culpable mental state
required for Careless Driving is “without due
regard” as explained in this instruction. Proof
of the commission of the act alone is not
sufficient to prove the defendant had the
required culpable mental state. The culpable
mental state is as such [sic] an element of the
crime as the act itself and must be proven
beyond a reasonable doubt, either by direct or
circumstantial evidence.

“Without due regard” means a failure to do an
act which a reasonably careful person would
do, or the doing of an act which a reasonably
careful person would not do, under the same
or similar circumstances to protect himself or
others from bodily injury or death.

¶ 20 The trial court stated that it was “not inclined” to give

Claycomb’s proposed definitional instruction because “without due

regard” is not defined in the model criminal jury instructions and

the elemental instruction “basically defines what careless driving is”

such that there is no need to “define it further.”

¶ 21 Defense counsel objected, arguing that the proposed

instruction was largely based on a comment to the careless driving

jury instruction in the model instructions, which cited People v.

7
Zweygardt, 2012 COA 119, in defining “without due regard.”

Counsel also argued that the proposed instruction would be helpful

to the jury because the instruction for reckless driving included a

definition of “reckless,” and without a separate culpable mental

state instruction for careless driving, the jury could be left

confused.

¶ 22 The prosecutor responded that the use of excerpts from

opinions as jury instructions is disfavored and noted that the

Zweygardt opinion did not include the definition of “without due

regarding” contained in the tendered instruction. The trial court

maintained its ruling.

2. Law and Analysis

¶ 23 “The mental element of careless driving is, in essence,

negligence; i.e., the ‘careless and imprudent’ frame of mind

indicating the absence of due care.” People v. Chapman, 557 P.2d

1211, 1213 (Colo. 1977). Since the trial in this case, a division of

this court has further clarified that “carelessness in the careless

driving statute, . . . under Chapman, is analogous to criminal

negligence.” People v. Kirby, 2024 COA 20, ¶ 46.

8
¶ 24 And in Zweygardt, a division of this court explained that the

culpable mental state for careless driving is “without due regard.”

Zweygardt, ¶ 32 (quoting § 42-4-1402(1)). The division went on to

say that “[a] person who grossly deviates from the standard of care

that a reasonable person would exercise and fails to perceive a

substantial and unjustified risk that a result will occur or that a

circumstance exists, has necessarily acted without due regard for

safety.” Id. at ¶ 34.

¶ 25 The culpable mental state for careless driving is not defined by

statute or included as a model criminal jury instruction. There is,

however, a comment to the model criminal jury instruction for

careless driving that cites and quotes portions of Zweygardt.

COLJI-Crim. 42:15 cmt. 3 (2024).

¶ 26 Generally, instructions that accurately track the language of

applicable statutes and pattern instructions are sufficient. People

v. Gallegos, 260 P.3d 15, 26 (Colo. App. 2010). The pattern

instructions, however, do not necessarily reflect the controlling law.

People v. Cox, 2021 COA 68, ¶ 20 (“[P]attern jury instructions are

not law, not authoritative, and not binding . . . .” (quoting Krueger v.

Ary, 205 P.3d 1150, 1154 (Colo. 2009))). And simply because a

9
tendered instruction does not exist in the model criminal jury

instructions does not mean that the tendered instruction is

erroneous. See Garcia v. People, 2019 CO 64, ¶ 22 (Model jury

instructions “are not a safe harbor that insulates instructional error

from reversal.”).

¶ 27 A definitional instruction is not required for a term or phrase

familiar to a reasonable person of common intelligence, especially

when the term’s “meaning is not so technical or mysterious as to

create confusion in jurors’ minds.” People v. Thoro Prods. Co., 45

P.3d 737, 745 (Colo. App. 2001), aff’d, 70 P.3d 1188 (Colo. 2003).

¶ 28 In our view, while it certainly would have been within the trial

court’s discretion to separately instruct the jury on the meaning of

“without due regard,” see Payne, ¶ 16, the court did not abuse its

discretion by not giving Claycomb’s tendered instruction.

¶ 29 We base our conclusion, first, on the fact that, although

“reckless” was the only culpable mental state defined in the jury

instructions, the provided careless driving instruction tracked the

statutory language and the model criminal jury instruction. See

§ 42-4-1402(1); COLJI-Crim. 42:15; Gallegos, 260 P.3d at 26. And

10
no binding Colorado precedent requires a separate instruction for

the culpable mental state of careless driving.

¶ 30 Second, because “without due regard” does not have a

statutory definition, the jury should have given the phrase its

ordinary meaning. See People v. Walden, 224 P.3d 369, 379 (Colo.

App. 2009) (“When definitions are not provided in a jury instruction,

the jury is presumed to employ the common meaning of the words

used.”); People v. Harper, 205 P.3d 452, 456 (Colo. App. 2008) (A

court should instruct the jury to employ the common meaning of a

word when the word lacks a “special statutory definition.”).

¶ 31 Third, the phrase “without due regard” is “not so technical or

mysterious as to create confusion in jurors’ minds.” Thoro Prods.

Co., 45 P.3d at 745. Rather, its ordinary meaning is “the absence of

due care.” Chapman, 557 P.2d at 1213.

¶ 32 Fourth, the jury did not express any confusion regarding what

the phrase means. Payne, ¶ 18. And Claycomb does not explain

how the jury would have attributed an incorrect meaning to it.

¶ 33 Finally, the specific definition of “without due regard” set forth

in Claycomb’s tendered instructions did not accurately quote the

definition of “without due regard” provided by Zweygardt, ¶ 34.

11
There, the court stated: “A person who grossly deviates from the

standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise and fails

to perceive a substantial and unjustified risk that a result will occur

or that a circumstance exists, has necessarily acted without due

regard for safety.” Id. Instead of using this language, the tendered

instruction quoted a civil definition of negligence. See CJI-Civ. 9:6

(2023) (“Negligence means a failure to do an act which a reasonably

careful person would do, or the doing of an act which a reasonably

careful person would not do, under the same or similar

circumstances to protect (oneself or) others from (bodily injury)

(death) . . . .”).

¶ 34 Relatedly, Claycomb also argues that, even if the trial court

properly concluded that his counsel’s tendered instruction was not

appropriate, the court was nonetheless obligated to sua sponte

provide a correct instruction to the jury. He cites Riley v. People,

266 P.3d 1089, 1092 (Colo. 2011), for the proposition that “[t]he

trial court has a duty to instruct the jury on all matters of law

applicable to the case.”

¶ 35 We review this argument for plain error because Claycomb did

not object at trial on this ground. See People v. Miller, 821 P.2d

12
881, 882 (Colo. App. 1991). An error is plain only if it is obvious

and substantial. Hagos v. People, 2012 CO 63, ¶ 14. Error is

obvious when it contravenes a clear statutory command, a well-

settled legal principle, or Colorado case law. People v. Pollard, 2013

COA 31M, ¶ 40. Any error here was not obvious because the model

criminal jury instructions do not contain a definition for the

culpable mental state for careless driving, and no authority requires

the giving of such an instruction. Therefore, the court’s failure to

sua sponte provide the jury with an instruction defining “without

due regard” did not rise to the level of plain error.

¶ 36 For these reasons, we conclude that the trial court did not err

by declining to give the jury Claycomb’s tendered instruction for the

culpable mental state for careless driving.

13
D. The Intervening Cause Instruction

¶ 37 Claycomb contends that the trial court erred by rejecting his

intervening cause instruction.1 We disagree.

1. Additional Facts

¶ 38 Claycomb proposed the following jury instruction on

intervening cause:

A defendant does not cause the death of or
serious bodily injury to another if there was an
independent intervening cause. A defendant is
responsible for the death of another if the
death is a natural and probable consequence
of his misconduct. Unlawful conduct which is
broken by an independent intervening cause
cannot be the proximate cause of the death of
another.

Defense counsel argued that the evidence supporting the proposed

instruction

would be the [victims’ truck] proceeding into
the intersection, taking the right [of] []way from
Mr. Claycomb, Your Honor.

1 Claycomb contends that intervening cause is an affirmative

defense, while the People assert that it is actually a traverse. We do
not need to resolve this dispute because, regardless of which party
is correct, an “intervening cause defense is treated like an
affirmative defense or a theory of defense for the purpose of
determining the quantum of evidence necessary to submit the issue
to the jury.” People v. Saavedra-Rodriguez, 971 P.2d 223, 228
(Colo. 1998); People v. Smoots, 2013 COA 152, ¶ 9, aff’d sub nom.
Reyna-Abarca v. People, 2017 CO 15.

14
The theory of the government’s case is that the
speeding of Mr. Claycomb led to this accident.
As the Court has already indicated, through
our theory of defense, the truck entering the
roadway took that right of way and would be
the independent, interceding cause leading to
or being the proximate cause of the accident.

¶ 39 The prosecutor countered by citing cases rejecting an

intervening cause instruction when the asserted intervening act

would constitute only simple negligence. See, e.g., People v. McAfee,

104 P.3d 226, 230 (Colo. App. 2004) (simple negligence, such as

failing to use a seatbelt, is foreseeable and does not rise to the level

of gross negligence, which is necessary to constitute an intervening

cause).

¶ 40 The trial court rejected Claycomb’s proposed instruction,

disagreeing that the Melansons’ truck entering the intersection was

an independent, intervening cause.

2. Law and Analysis

¶ 41 “An independent intervening cause is an act of an independent

person or entity that destroys the causal connection between the

defendant’s act and the victim’s injury and[] thereby becomes the

cause of the victim’s injury.” People v. Saavedra-Rodriguez, 971

P.2d 223, 225-26 (Colo. 1998). “For an independent intervening

15
cause to relieve a defendant of liability it must not be reasonably

foreseeable.” Id. at 226.

¶ 42 To be foreseeable, an act must be “likely enough in the setting

of modern life that a reasonably thoughtful person would take

account of it in guiding practical conduct.” Garcia v. Colo. Cab Co.,

2023 CO 56, ¶ 22 (quoting Taco Bell, Inc. v. Lannon, 744 P.2d 43,

48 (Colo. 1987)). Simple negligence is foreseeable, while gross

negligence is not. See Saavedra-Rodriguez, 971 P.2d at 226.

Simple negligence is generally defined as “a failure to do an act

which a reasonably careful person would do, or the doing of an act

which a reasonably careful person would not do, under the same or

similar circumstances to protect oneself or others from bodily

injury.” Bedee v. Am. Med. Response of Colo., 2015 COA 128, ¶ 12;

see also CJI-Civ. 9:6. “Gross negligence is willful and wanton

conduct, that is, action committed recklessly, with conscious

disregard for the safety of others.” Martinez v. People, 2024 CO 6M,

¶ 14 (quoting Hamill v. Cheley Colo. Camps, Inc., 262 P.3d 945, 954

(Colo. App. 2011)); see also People v. Lopez, 97 P.3d 277, 282 (Colo.

App. 2004) (Gross negligence is abnormal human behavior that

16
constitutes “an extreme departure from the ordinary standard of

care.”).

¶ 43 Here, Claycomb requested an intervening cause instruction on

the basis that the evidence showed that the Melansons rapidly

accelerated into the intersection before Claycomb’s car collided with

their truck, thereby taking the right of way from Claycomb. When

viewed in the light most favorable to Claycomb, this evidence

arguably suggests that the Melansons, not Claycomb, caused the

accident. But, even in this light, the Melansons’ actions, at most,

constituted simple negligence.

¶ 44 We find Lopez instructive here. There, the victim’s daughter

was driving at the speed limit when the daughter saw the

defendant’s car approaching. Lopez, 97 P.3d at 282. The daughter

determined she could safely turn left in front of the defendant’s car

and proceeded to do so. Id. The defendant was driving over the

speed limit, but the daughter decided she could safely clear the

intersection by accelerating. Id. The defendant’s car collided with

the daughter’s car, and the victim, who was not wearing a seatbelt,

was thrown from the car and killed. Id. at 278, 282. The defendant

was charged with, and convicted of, reckless vehicular homicide.

17
Id. at 278. On appeal, the defendant argued that the trial court had

erred by not instructing the jury on intervening cause. Id. at 282.

The division concluded that, although the daughter’s decision to

turn left and accelerate might have been a “driving error,” it did not

warrant an intervening cause instruction because it did not

constitute “abnormal behavior.” Id. The division reasoned that

“even if she made misjudgments, nothing in the record show[ed]

that [the daughter’s] decisions to turn left and to accelerate in an

attempt to avoid the collision constituted an extreme departure

from the ordinary standard of care sufficient to support a finding of

gross negligence.” Id.

¶ 45 Similarly to Lopez, we cannot conclude that the truck

proceeding into an intersection from a stop and accelerating to

avoid a collision constituted gross negligence. It was not “willful

and wanton conduct . . . committed recklessly, with conscious

disregard for the safety of others.” Martinez, ¶ 14 (quoting Hamill,

262 P.3d at 954). Nor was it abnormal human behavior

constituting an extreme departure from the ordinary standard of

care.

18
¶ 46 Claycomb attempts to distinguish Lopez, arguing that there is

no indication that the victim in Lopez proceeded from the safety of a

stop sign, as the Melansons did here. We, however, do not see this

as a meaningful distinction. Like the victim in Lopez, the

Melansons had to attempt to traverse the intersection at some point

— and that they did so at the time and in the manner they did was

not unforeseeable.

¶ 47 And because the Melansons’ actions were not unforeseeable

gross negligence, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its

discretion by ruling that Claycomb was not entitled to an

intervening cause instruction. Cf. Sheldon v. Higinbotham, 444

P.2d 272, 274 (Colo. 1968) (evidence that the defendant was

speeding, ran a stop sign, ignored the passengers’ requests to slow

down, and overturned the vehicle in an attempt to make a left-hand

turn at too high a rate of speed was sufficient evidence of a willful

and wanton disregard of the rights of others to submit the question

of gross negligence to the jury).

E. Proximate Cause

¶ 48 Claycomb next contends that the trial court erred by failing to

define “proximate cause” for the jury after it asked for a definition of

19
the phrase. Although we agree that the court erred, we conclude

that the error was harmless.

1. Additional Facts

¶ 49 The term “proximate cause” appeared in the jury instructions

in the theory of defense, the elemental instruction for vehicular

homicide, and the interrogatory for the careless driving “resulting in

death” sentence enhancer. The theory of defense was that the

Melansons’ truck was the proximate cause of the collision. As an

element of vehicular homicide, the prosecution was required to

prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Claycomb’s “conduct [wa]s

the proximate cause of the death of another.” § 18-3-106(1)(a),

C.R.S. 2024. And the interrogatory for careless driving resulting in

death required the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt

that Claycomb’s actions were “the proximate cause of death to

another.” § 42-4-1402(2)(c).

¶ 50 During deliberations, the jury asked the trial court, “What is

the definition of proximate cause?” Defense counsel argued that

the court should provide the jury a definition because the phrase

“proximate cause” was “part of the law of the case,” and it has a

“specific meaning at law that is not . . . the common

20
understanding.” The prosecutor argued that an instruction was not

necessary because, although the 1983 version of the model criminal

jury instructions contained a definition of proximate cause, the

drafters later determined it was appropriate to remove that

instruction. The prosecutor also argued that using excerpts from

an opinion as jury instructions is generally an unwise practice.

¶ 51 The trial court responded to the jury’s question as follows:

“You have received all of the law that you may consider to decide

this case. When a word or term is not defined in the jury

instructions, you should use the common meaning of that word or

term.” Although the court pointed out to counsel that the word

proximate “tends to be confusing to a jury,” the court based its

response to the jury’s question on the fact that the model criminal

jury instructions did not contain a definition for proximate cause.

2. Law and Analysis

¶ 52 Proximate cause is defined as “a cause which in natural and

probable sequence produced the claimed injury . . . [and] without

which the claimed injury would not have been sustained.” People v.

Stewart, 55 P.3d 107, 116 (Colo. 2002) (quoting CJI-Crim. 9:10

(1983)); see also Lopez, 97 P.3d at 280 (“[A] defendant’s conduct is

21
the cause of the victim’s death in a criminal homicide if ‘it began a

chain of events the natural and probable consequence of which was

the victim’s death.’” (quoting Saavedra-Rodriguez, 971 P.2d at 225)).

¶ 53 “Proximate cause” is not defined in the current version of the

model criminal jury instructions. When the model instructions

were updated in 2014, the definition of proximate cause was

removed. Compare COLJI-Crim. F (209) (2008) (the definition of

proximate cause), with COLJI-Crim. F (2014) (not containing a

definition of proximate cause). However, the 2014 updates included

the addition of comments to a number of jury instructions,

including the one for vehicular homicide, advising of potential juror

confusion as to the meaning of “proximate.” See COLJI-Crim. 3-

1:12 cmt. 2 (2014) (“CJI-Civ. Ch. 9, § B (Causation) (2014) (‘The

[Colorado Supreme Court Committee on Civil Jury Instructions] has

intentionally eliminated the use of the word “proximate” when

instructing the jury on causation issues because the concept of

proximate cause is adequately included in the instructions in this

Part B and because the word “proximate” tends to be confusing to

the jury.’).”). These comments still appear in the current version of

the model instructions. See COLJI-Crim. 3-1:12 cmt. 2 (2024).

22
¶ 54 It is within the trial court’s sound discretion to determine

whether to provide the jury with additional written instructions in

response to a jury question. People v. Alvarado, 284 P.3d 99, 101

(Colo. App. 2011). “When . . . the original instructions adequately

informed the jury, no additional or supplemental instruction is

required or recommended.” People v. Gilmore, 97 P.3d 123, 132

(Colo. App. 2003).

We presume that a jury understands the
instructions it is given. However, when the
jury indicates to the judge that it does not
understand an element of the offense charged
or some other matter of law central to the guilt
or innocence of the accused, the judge has an
obligation to clarify that matter for the jury in
a concrete and unambiguous manner.

Leonardo v. People, 728 P.2d 1252, 1256 (Colo. 1986). “Where . . . a

jury affirmatively indicates that it has a fundamental

misunderstanding of an instruction it has been given, the basis for

a presumption that the jury understands the instruction

disappears.” Id. at 1255. “A jury should be referred back to

instructions only when it is apparent that the jury has overlooked

some portion of the instructions or when the instructions clearly

answer the jury’s inquiry.” Id.

23
¶ 55 Here, although the trial court referred the jury back to the

original instructions, the original instructions used the phrase

“proximate cause” on three occasions but contained no definition of

the phrase. We conclude the original instructions did not clearly

answer the jury’s question as to the meaning of proximate cause.

And “[r]eferring the jury back to the same instruction that created

the doubt in their minds could serve no useful purpose.” Id.

¶ 56 Furthermore, proximate cause is an element of vehicular

homicide, and the prosecution also had to prove proximate cause to

establish the “resulting in death” sentence enhancer for careless

driving. Whether the prosecution had proved beyond a reasonable

doubt that Claycomb’s actions were, as a legal matter, the

proximate cause of the Melansons’ deaths was a question of fact

central to the jury’s determination of Claycomb’s guilt. The trial

court therefore should have clarified the phrase “in a concrete and

unambiguous manner.” Id. at 1256.

¶ 57 Finally, we acknowledge that proximate cause is not

specifically defined in the model criminal jury instructions and that

the use of an excerpt from an opinion as a jury instruction is a

risky practice. See People v. Pahl, 169 P.3d 169, 183-84 (Colo. App.

24
2006) (“As a general rule, the use of an excerpt from an opinion in a

jury instruction is an unwise practice because opinions and

instructions have very different purposes.”). Nonetheless, the model

instructions are not binding or authoritative. Cox, ¶ 20. And, as

some of the comments to the model criminal jury instructions

indicate, the term can be “confusing” to jurors. Indeed, the trial

court here indicated that the word proximate “tends to be confusing

to a jury.” Given these dynamics, the model instructions’ comment

about potential juror confusion concerning “proximate cause”

counseled in favor of providing the jury the requested definition so

it could better understand that phrase as used in the instructions.2

¶ 58 For these reasons, we conclude that the trial court erred by

failing to define proximate cause in response to the jury’s question.

2 COLJI-Crim. 3-1:12 cmt. 2 (2024) cites People v. Stewart, 55 P.3d

107, 116 (Colo. 2002), noting differences between “cause” and
“proximate cause.” But this distinction also seems to amplify the
need to provide a definition of proximate cause when that term is
used in the instructions provided to the jury. Stewart, 55 P.3d at
116 (“‘“[C]ause” means that act or failure to act which in natural
and probable sequence produced the claimed injury.’ Proximate
cause, by contrast, ‘means a cause which in natural and probable
sequence produced the claimed injury. It is a cause without which
the claimed injury would not have been sustained.’”) (citations
omitted).

25
¶ 59 Nonetheless, we determine that the error was harmless

because the evidence that Claycomb’s careless driving was the

proximate cause of the Melansons’ deaths was overwhelming. See

People v. Grassi, 192 P.3d 496, 499-500 (Colo. App. 2008) (ordinary

harmless error review applies to a defendant’s challenge to the trial

court’s proximate cause instruction for purposes of vehicular

homicide). True, as Claycomb asserts, some of the evidence

involved “precise details such as whether the experts made

calculations using a ‘drag factor’ of 0.70 or 0.75 and whether one

specific mark on the road was a ‘skid’ mark or a ‘yaw scuff’ mark.”

Regardless, all three experts testified that Claycomb was driving

well over the posted sixty-five-mile-per-hour speed limit just before

he collided with the Melansons. One expert testified that his

pre-impact speed was 107 miles per hour; another testified that it

was 105-117 miles per hour; and the third expert testified that it

was 87-89 miles per hour. Therefore, according to the experts,

Claycomb was driving at least twenty-two miles per hour, and up to

fifty-two miles per hour, over the posted speed limit before the

collision. And the jury ultimately found that Claycomb was driving

at least twenty-five miles per hour over the speed limit.

26
¶ 60 Furthermore, the police officer who responded to the hospital

where Claycomb was admitted after the collision testified that

Claycomb confessed to colliding with the Melansons while driving

eighty miles per hour.

¶ 61 It was also undisputed that Claycomb and the Melansons

collided, which resulted in the Melansons’ deaths.

¶ 62 Under any view of the evidence, it is apparent that Claycomb’s

conduct of excessive speeding, in natural and probable sequence,

produced the Melansons’ deaths, and without it, the deaths would

not have occurred.

¶ 63 Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court’s error in

declining to give a definition for proximate cause was harmless.

F. Jury Instructions Regarding Continued Deliberations

¶ 64 Finally, Claycomb contends that the trial court reversibly erred

by instructing the jury regarding continued deliberations without

first inquiring regarding the possibility of an impasse. We disagree.

1. Additional Facts

¶ 65 Approximately one and a half hours into deliberations, the

jury asked the following two questions: “How long do we have to

27
deliberate until it is called a hung jury?” and “How many more days

of deliberation would be maximum?”

¶ 66 The prosecutor argued that the trial court should tell the jury

that “they have as long as they need.”

¶ 67 Defense counsel moved for a mistrial, which the trial court

denied. Counsel then requested that the court give the jury a

modified-Allen instruction and “make an inquiry of the jury.”

¶ 68 The trial court responded,

I think it’s premature for that. I think that,
one, we don’t know if they are hung on one
charge, four charges, or something in between.
Two, as I noted, this question came out at
right around a little more or a little less than
an hour and a half of deliberations, which is
very little time. I agree that the Court should
advise the jury that the Court does not dictate
how long a jury deliberates.

¶ 69 The court’s response to the jury’s questions said that “[t]he

Court does not dictate how long a jury should deliberate. You

should continue to deliberate to see if you can reach a unanimous

verdict on any, or all of the charges.” Neither the prosecutor nor

defense counsel objected to this language. The court also told

counsel, “If later in the day they still are indicating that they have

28
not reached verdicts on one or more of the charges I may consider

at that time if a modified[-]Allen instruction is appropriate.”

¶ 70 Approximately four hours later, the jury asked for the

definition of proximate cause.

¶ 71 When discussing the response to the proximate cause

question, the court indicated that, because it was nearing 5 p.m., it

would be giving a “getting close to 5 instruction,” which gave the

jury three options from which to select:

(1) “We would like to break now and resume deliberations on

Monday morning at 8:30 a.m. or 9:00 a.m.”;

(2) “Because we are close to reaching a verdict, we would like

to continue deliberating today up to 5:30 p.m.”; or

(3) “We have reached a verdict.”

Neither party objected to this instruction.

¶ 72 After the trial court went back on the record, defense counsel

again moved for a mistrial and for the court to, at the very least,

inquire of the jury as to its likelihood of progress toward a

unanimous verdict.

¶ 73 The trial court responded,

29
Since that first question, at approximately an
hour and a half into their deliberations, the
jury has not given any indication that they’ve
reached an impasse or that they are unable to
reach a verdict. And until the jury does that,
the Court will not give them the modified[-]
Allen unless the Court believes that they have
been extensively deliberating. The Court
doesn’t find, even at seven hours of
deliberations on a case with two homicides and
four charges, that this is an extraordinary
amount of time to deliberate based upon the
serious nature of the charges, the amount of
evidence that was presented, the number of
exhibits that were introduced as well. So I will
deny the motion for the mistrial at this time.

¶ 74 After receiving the court’s “getting close to 5 instruction,” the

jury asked a follow-up question: “Do we have to come back on

Monday even if we make a decision by 5:30?” The trial court

responded: “No. If you reach a verdict by 5:30 you will not have to

come back on Monday.”

¶ 75 Defense counsel objected due to “concerns that the response

will pressure some jurors to reach a conclusion that may not be

their own.” The court advised defense counsel that counsel could

have the jurors polled.

30
¶ 76 The jury answered the “getting close to 5 instruction” by

indicating that it was close to a verdict and would like to continue

deliberating until 5:30 p.m.

¶ 77 The jury returned its verdicts shortly before 5:30 p.m.

2. Law and Analysis

¶ 78 A trial court may not give a jury instruction “that expressly or

impliedly coerces the jury to reach a verdict regardless of whether

that would require a juror to ‘surrender his conscientious

convictions to secure an agreement.’” People v. Munsey, 232 P.3d

113, 119 (Colo. App. 2009) (quoting Lowe v. People, 488 P.2d 559,

561 (Colo. 1971)).

¶ 79 If the jury communicates that it has reached an impasse, the

trial court may give the jury a “modified-Allen” instruction, which

“is a supplemental jury instruction designed to encourage, but not

coerce, a deadlocked jury into reaching a unanimous verdict.” Fain

v. People, 2014 CO 69, ¶ 2.

To accomplish this, the instruction informs the
jury that it should attempt to reach a
unanimous verdict; that each juror should
decide the case for himself or herself; that the
jurors should not hesitate to reconsider their
views; and that they should not surrender

31
their honest convictions solely because of
others’ opinions or to return a verdict.

Id.; see also Allen v. People, 660 P.2d 896 (Colo. 1983).

¶ 80 Before a trial court gives a modified-Allen instruction, the

court should “determine whether there is a likelihood of progress

towards a unanimous verdict upon further deliberations.” Fain,

¶ 19 (quoting People v. Schwartz, 678 P.2d 1000, 1012 (Colo.

1984)). “The reason for this requirement is to minimize the

potential that a modified-Allen instruction will coerce a hopelessly

deadlocked jury into reaching a compromise verdict.” Id.; see also

People v. Cox, 2023 COA 1, ¶ 18 (“If there is no indication that the

jury is deadlocked, . . . a premature modified-Allen

instruction . . . may unnecessarily involve the court in jury

deliberations that are progressing just fine on their own.”). After

making this determination, the trial court has discretion to decide

whether to give the modified-Allen instruction. Fain, ¶ 19.

¶ 81 Under the circumstances of this case, we conclude that the

trial court did not abuse its discretion by instructing the jury to

continue deliberating in response to the questions submitted an

hour and a half into deliberations. See Cox, ¶ 18 (“[T]he coercive

32
effect of a supplemental jury instruction (or a response to a jury

question) is necessarily content- and context-dependent and must

be assessed on a case-by-case basis.”).

¶ 82 Claycomb relies primarily on People v. Black, 2020 COA 136,

to support his contention that the trial court abused its discretion.

In Black, during the second day of deliberations, a juror asked the

trial court, “What happens if we can’t come to a unanimous

decision on only one charge?” Black, ¶ 8. Black requested that the

court provide the jury with the modified-Allen instruction. Id. The

trial court declined and instead, without inquiring of the jury

concerning the nature and degree of its potential impasse,

instructed the jury to “please continue with your deliberations at

this time.” Id. The jury returned a verdict thirty minutes later. Id.

¶ 83 On appeal, Black contended that the trial court erred by

instructing the jury to continue deliberating without first inquiring

into the nature and extent of the jury’s impasse. Id. at ¶ 11. The

division agreed, concluding the trial court erred “by instructing the

jury to continue deliberating without first determining whether it

was at an impasse and, if so, how intractable that impasse was.”

Id. at ¶ 12. The division noted that the trial court’s failure to

33
inquire of the jury deprived the court of the ability to meaningfully

assess the degree of the jury’s deadlock and therefore reversal was

required:

[B]ecause the trial court failed to conduct this
inquiry, it is impossible for us to now divine
the nature of the jury’s impasse from the cold
record. The best we can do is say that, based
on the jury’s question, progress towards a
verdict may have been unlikely or impossible
(though the latter is less plausible). If either
was true, the court’s unqualified instruction to
continue deliberating was coercive. We
therefore conclude that the trial court abused
its discretion by failing to conduct the
threshold inquiry into whether progress
towards a verdict was likely if deliberations
continued.

Id. at ¶ 24.

¶ 84 The People rely primarily on Cox for their counterargument

that the trial court acted within its discretion when it told the jury

to keep deliberating. In Cox, four and a half hours into

deliberations, the jury asked the trial court, “What happens if the

jury fails to reach a unanimous decision?” and “Is there a max

length for jury deliberations?” Cox, ¶ 11. The court, without

inquiring concerning the nature and degree of a potential impasse,

told the jury to continue deliberating and advised the jurors that

34
“[a] jury takes as long as it needs to reach a unanimous decision.”

Id. at ¶ 12. Two and a half hours later, the jury returned a verdict.

Id. at ¶ 14.

¶ 85 On appeal, Cox contended that the trial court erred by

instructing the jury to continue deliberating without first asking

whether further deliberation was likely to result in a unanimous

verdict. Id. at ¶ 15. The division disagreed. Id. at ¶ 36. In doing

so, the division distinguished the case from Black and concluded

that Black did not “establish[] an ‘inflexible’ per se rule that any

time a jury asks a question about reaching unanimity — at any

point in its deliberation — the district court must immediately, and

without request, launch into the modified-Allen instructional

framework.” Id. at ¶ 29.

¶ 86 We conclude that Claycomb’s case is more analogous to Cox

and is distinguishable from Black for the same reasons expressed

by the division in Cox. Indeed, we agree with the division in Cox

that Black did not establish a hard-and-fast rule that, when a jury

asks about reaching unanimity at any point during deliberations,

the trial court must immediately proceed to the modified-Allen

instructional framework. Cox, ¶ 29.

35
¶ 87 As in Cox, here the jury’s questions “did not indicate that the

jury was deadlocked,” that “it was unable to reach a verdict,” or

that “further deliberations were unlikely to result in a verdict.” Cox,

¶ 20; see also Munsey, 232 P.3d at 119-20 (“[T]he jury did not

categorically state that it was unable to reach a verdict. Nor was

there any indication that further deliberations would not result in a

verdict unless at least one juror voted in contravention of his or her

true beliefs.”). Nor did the questions indicate that the jury might be

deadlocked on a particular charge. Rather, the jury was asking the

trial court more generally about the time constraints for its

deliberations. These questions fell “well short of the explicit

declarations of impasse that more typically trigger further inquiry or

instruction.” Cox, ¶ 20; cf. People v. Dunlap, 124 P.3d 780, 817-18

(Colo. App. 2004) (The jury told the trial court it was “at an

impasse, with no movement from individuals’ positions [occurring]

over the past 2 hours,” and asked the court, “[W]hat is the proper

approach to try to resolve the [impasse]”; the division concluded

that the court’s response the next day to “resume your

deliberations” was not improper.).

36
¶ 88 Second, as in Cox, the jury questions came after a short period

of deliberation — only one and a half hours in a double homicide

case. In Cox, the jury questions were posed after only four and a

half hours of deliberation. Cox, ¶ 21. But in Black, the jury posed

its question on the second day of deliberations. In contrast to

Black, the jury here was early in its deliberations and was not “a

hopelessly deadlocked jury [that had] been deliberating for days.”

Black, ¶ 17. “That made it less likely that the jury question

reflected a true state of impasse . . . .” Cox, ¶ 21. And the short

period of time also limited the coercive nature of the trial court’s

response. Id.; see also Black, ¶ 17 (“If it is early in deliberations

and the jury is making progress towards a verdict, an instruction to

continue deliberating, even an unqualified one, carries little coercive

risk.”).

¶ 89 Third, the trial court’s response to continue deliberating did

not contain any coercive content. It did not “place any deadline on

deliberations” or explicitly or implicitly urge the jurors “to

compromise their views for the sake of unanimity.” Cox, ¶ 22.

¶ 90 Finally, as in in Cox, “there is no indication the jury was in

fact coerced by the court’s response.” Id. at ¶ 35. When the jury

37
asked the questions, it had only been deliberating for one and a half

hours. And after receiving the trial court’s response, the jury

deliberated for approximately another five hours before returning

the verdict. This “cuts against a conclusion that the jury felt

pressured by the court’s response.” Id. In contrast, the jury in

Black returned a verdict only thirty minutes after being told to

continue deliberating. Black, ¶ 8.

¶ 91 Because like in Cox, the trial court’s instruction for the jury to

continue deliberating did not implicitly coerce the jurors, we

conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by giving

the instruction.

¶ 92 Claycomb also argues that the coercive impact of the trial

court’s instruction to continue deliberating was compounded by the

court’s “getting close to 5” instruction. Because we conclude that

the court’s instruction to continue deliberating did not coerce the

jury, we likewise conclude that there was no coercion to be

compounded. We do, however, encourage trial courts to exercise

caution in giving instructions like the court’s “getting close to 5

instruction.” While acknowledging a court’s desires to manage

juries, its docket, and courtroom logistics, and to move a case

38
toward completion, we also note that such instructions run the risk

of encouraging the jury to rush to reach a verdict to avoid returning

the next day. This hazard is demonstrated by the jury’s follow-up

question asking if it would have to return on Monday if it reached a

verdict by 5:30 p.m., its selection of that option, and its return of a

verdict right before that time. Nonetheless, because neither this

response nor the prior instructions were coercive, given the specific

facts and circumstances of this case, and the jury’s deliberations,

we perceive no reversible error.

III. Disposition

¶ 93 The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

JUDGE WELLING and JUDGE KUHN concur.

39