Colorado’s second-highest court clarified on Thursday that a defendant may stand convicted under the state’s trophy hunting laws if he abandons a bear carcass but returns later to remove the meat.

Under Colorado law, it is a felony to detach or remove the trophy parts of big game, such as the head or hide, “with the intent to abandon the carcass or body.”

Robert C. Schlitt challenged his Park County convictions related to the destruction of wildlife, arguing that he killed a bear and initially took the trophy parts, but subsequently returned and took 62 pounds of meat from the bear carcass.

A three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals disagreed that Schlitt was wrongfully convicted, noting that his intent mattered.

Jurors heard that Schlitt killed a bear while hunting with his brother on Sept. 11, 2022. They recruited someone from a nearby camp to help retrieve the bear and removed its hide, head, and paws. They did not cut any meat off the carcass or do anything to field dress the bear.

The next day, Schlitt’s father called Colorado Parks and Wildlife to confirm whether the brothers needed to collect the bear meat. The brothers were angry at their father’s actions and went back to retrieve 62 pounds of meat from the bear. An expert later testified that there would typically be 120 pounds of meat on a bear that size.

Prosecutors charged Schlitt with multiple misdemeanors and a felony for willful destruction of wildlife. After the prosecution presented its case, the defense moved for acquittal, arguing that Schlitt had not only taken the trophy parts but had also harvested the meat.

Chief Judge Amanda Hunter denied the motion, reasoning that “because they took some meat, regardless of what amount that is and regardless of whether it’s reasonable or not, that doesn’t prevent a jury from finding that they’ve left a portion of the carcass sufficient to find guilt on this charge.”

The appellate panel upheld Schlitt’s willful destruction conviction, concluding there was “overwhelming” evidence that Schlitt took the trophy parts of the bear with an intent to abandon the carcass. Further, his later return did not necessarily undermine that intent.

“On one hand, a hunter who takes only the trophy parts and leaves the rest of the carcass to decompose would almost certainly violate the statute. On the other hand, a hunter who field dresses the animal and immediately packs out its edible portions likely would not. This case falls in the middle of those two extremes,” wrote Judge Matthew D. Grove in the Aug. 20 opinion. The evidence “reasonably supported a conclusion that Schlitt had the intent to abandon the carcass when he killed the bear because he initially took only the bear’s trophy parts, failed to field dress the bear, left the carcass on some logs, and returned to harvest some meat only after learning that the authorities had been notified.”

Grove added that Schlitt’s act of only taking half of the available meat from the bear “suggested that his return to the carcass in the wake of his father’s phone call to CPW was not a genuine attempt to harvest the edible portions of the animal.”

The panel did, however, agree with Schlitt that the prosecutor committed misconduct in closing arguments. The prosecutor told jurors that “we get here” because a CPW investigator brought findings to the district attorney’s office. The decision to pursue the case is “not just on him. It’s him, it’s his supervisors, it’s the judges that sign the search warrants and the arrest warrants. And then it’s also on me.”

“These statements were improper, and obviously so,” wrote Grove, explaining that a prosecutor’s reference to a “screening process” suggests that there is additional evidence of a defendant’s guilt that may unfairly lead a jury to convict.

However, the panel concluded the prosecutor’s statements were brief and likely did not affect the verdict in light of all of the evidence against Schlitt.

The Court of Appeals did not name the prosecutor, but court records from the trial show that Stephanie Miller was the assigned prosecutor.

The case is People v. Schlitt.