Colorado’s Supreme Court has clarified the level of evidence prosecutors must present to establish that a defendant who is charged with possession of a weapon by a previous offender does, in fact, have a prior felony conviction.

In its ruling on Monday, the court decided there must be an “essential link” between the defendant and a past conviction, requiring both documentation and corroborating evidence that the person in the current case is the same person from the prior case.

The justices agreed El Paso County prosecutors had presented a fairly weak argument that the Enrique Ernesto Gorostieta on trial for weapons possession was the same Enrique Gorostieta previously convicted of a felony drug offense, but they ultimately upheld his 2019 weapons conviction.

“Nonetheless, taking the facts in the light most favorable to the prosecution, as we are required to do,” wrote Justice Richard L. Gabriel in the Sept. 12 opinion, “we conclude that on the evidence presented, although perhaps thin, the prosecution produced sufficient documentary evidence combined with specific corroborating evidence to establish the requisite essential link between the prior conviction and Gorostieta.”

Following his conviction for possession of a weapon by a previous offender, Gorostieta lost his attempt at overturning the conviction at the Court of Appeals. He argued prosecutors had not presented sufficient evidence Gorostieta was the same person whose 2016 conviction for possession of a controlled substance would have barred him from having a firearm.

A three-judge panel upheld Gorostieta’s weapons conviction by 2-1. Writing in dissent, Judge Ted C. Tow III outlined the ways in which prosecutors could have established Gorostieta was the same Enrique Gorostieta with a prior drug conviction — but did not.

“No one testified that Gorostieta’s fingerprints or signature matched those in the earlier court file. The jury was not provided a photograph from the earlier case file depicting the individual who was charged in that case so that a witness could testify to the comparison, or even so the jury could make its own comparison,” Tow wrote.

Instead, jurors heard a Hispanic male named Enrique Ernesto Gorostieta committed a prior drug offense in El Paso County, who happened to have the same date of birth as the Enrique Gorostieta on trial for weapons possession.

To Tow, that level of proof fell short of linking Gorostieta to the previous case beyond a reasonable doubt.

“Moreover, the physical description was relatively nondescript, describing a black-haired Hispanic male of a height and weight that are essentially average — literally a description that likely matched hundreds, if not thousands, of people in El Paso County,” he wrote.

On appeal to the Supreme Court, the parties agreed that merely establishing a defendant has the same name and date of birth as someone with a prior conviction is generally not proof enough they are the same person. Justice Maria E. Bekrenkotter, a former Boulder County judge, explained during oral arguments that clerical errors or suspects using the wrong name were both plausible explanations for a defendant’s mistaken identity.

“I actually have had cases before as a trial court judge where suddenly something is being dismissed because the defendant is not who law enforcement thought they were,” she said.

The Supreme Court acknowledged there was no clear legal standard for how to prove a defendant’s identity from a past offense when they are charged with possession of a weapon by a previous offender. However, the justices agreed prosecutors can establish an “essential link” between the convictions by producing unique identifiers like driver licenses, as well as photographs or fingerprints, distinguishing features like tattoos, or testimony from those who are familiar with the defendant’s prior offense, like probation officers.

For Gorostieta’s trial, the government did not bring that sort of proof.

“In our view, the prosecution’s decision not to introduce any such corroborating evidence makes this case close,” Gabriel wrote.

The prosecution did give jurors a description of the Enrique Gorostieta convicted for the previous drug offense, which they could compare to their observations of the Enrique Gorostieta on trial for firearms possession.

That was enough to uphold the jury’s guilty verdict, the court determined.

Chief Justice Brian D. Boatright wrote separately for himself and Justice William W. Hood III. Although they agreed with the outcome, they did not believe the court needed to issue fresh guidance for how to prove identity when it was clear Gorostieta’s jury acted reasonably.

“Here, in my view, common sense carries the day,” Boatright wrote. “It is extremely improbable that two men would share the same first, middle, and last name; the same birthdate; the same location over a relatively short time period; and, the same height, weight, hair color, and eye color.”

The case is Gorostieta v. People.