The Colorado Supreme Court confirmed on Tuesday that its 20-year-old decision involving drivers who leave the scene of an accident remains good law and prosecutors do not have to prove that such defendants knew they were involved in an accident.

In 2006, the Supreme Court ruled that leaving the scene of an accident resulting in serious injury is a “strict liability” offense, meaning a person is guilty solely through their conduct, without the need for prosecutors to prove the defendant’s mental state.

Decades later, defendant Jason P. Brown argued that no other felony offenses in Colorado permit a conviction absent any proof of a defendant’s knowledge.

But the Supreme Court upheld Brown’s convictions, while acknowledging the contention that drivers who lack knowledge of an accident will necessarily fail to stop as required by law.

“Although we are not unsympathetic to this argument and acknowledge that some states with LTS statutes similar to ours have concluded that knowledge is required as to the accident element of the offense, we are constrained to follow the plain language,” wrote Justice Richard L. Gabriel in the June 23 opinion. “Any effort to remedy perceived inequity that might result from the application of the statute’s plain language is more appropriately directed to our General Assembly.”

Justice Carlos A. Samour Jr. wrote separately to agree that the evidence of Brown’s guilt was “overwhelming,” but he could not support the majority’s reasoning.

One night in June 2017, Brown drove his pickup truck — which witnesses described as “monster,” with “humongous” tires — into an alley between Broadway and Lincoln Street in Denver. He ran over two people who were sleeping in an alcove adjacent to a church. Brown paused, then drove over the victims again with his rear tires.

People nearby attempted to assist the victims and one person confronted Brown at the end of the alleyway. Seeing that Brown appeared drunk, she told Brown he “just ran these people over.” Brown denied it, then drove off.

One of the victims, Kimberly Macey, died. The other was seriously injured.

Jurors convicted Brown of a misdemeanor DUI, reckless vehicular homicide, reckless vehicular assault and leaving the scene of an accident resulting in death and serious injury. After a judge found Brown had prior felony convictions, he received a sentence of 60 years in prison.

Colorado law criminalizes the act of leaving the scene of an accident that results in injury or death, without rendering aid. On appeal, Brown argued his leaving-the-scene conviction could not stand because jurors were not required to find that he had knowledge of the accident.

A three-judge Court of Appeals panel concluded it was bound by a 2006 Supreme Court decision in People v. Manzo, which held that the legislature intended the offense to be strict liability. Moreover, convicting a defendant without proving his knowledge does not violate his right to due process, wrote then-Justice Nancy E. Rice, because leaving the scene is a “public welfare offense.”

During oral arguments to the Supreme Court, the discussion turned to the problem of convicting a driver who genuinely is unaware they have hit someone — and the related challenge of prosecuting a driver who lies about their lack of awareness.

“The true boogeyman in this scenario is the morally blameless driver who has been involved in an accident resulting in serious bodily injury or death and doesn’t have awareness,” said Assistant Attorney General Austin R. Johnston. “There’s no evidence it has ever happened, let alone at the rate where it would start to give us pause.”

“It would seem to me,” responded Gabriel, “the fact that this happens so rarely would suggest it would not be an extreme burden of having to prove ‘knowingly’ in these cases.”

Ultimately, the Supreme Court stuck by its Manzo decision. Gabriel noted that the legislature had taken no steps to overturn the ruling in the 20 years since and had, instead, increased the penalties to parallel other serious crimes involving vehicles.

Requiring proof of a defendant’s knowledge “would incentivize drivers to flee the scene of an accident, contrary to the General Assembly’s expressed intent,” Gabriel wrote.

Samour, in a concurring opinion that was twice the length of the majority opinion, slammed the Manzo decision as wrong and criticized the majority for upholding it. He believed the law contains a requirement that defendants have knowledge of their involvement in an accident, and prosecuting a driver who lacks that knowledge poses a “risk of grave injustice.”

“The prospect of an innocent driver being swept into the gears of the criminal justice machine — even if rare — cannot be written off as an unfortunate but tolerable cost of doing business,” Samour wrote.

He added that Colorado is seemingly the only state that lacks a proof-of-knowledge requirement. He listed other state court decisions, including a 2015 Florida Supreme Court ruling, that all required proof of a driver’s awareness of being involved in an accident.

The court “cannot sidestep constitutional questions simply by pointing to the legislature. Those issues fall squarely within our domain, and we should not shirk our responsibility,” Samour wrote. “And even if such situations arise infrequently, I cannot accept the risk they create. Even a single morally blameless driver being falsely accused, convicted and punished … is one too many.”

The case is Brown v. People.