mt:Include module="Global Settings" /> Self Defense Jury Instructions Archives: Colorado Criminal Lawyer Blog

Recently in Self Defense Jury Instructions Category

March 24, 2012

Colorado Is A No Duty To Retreat State - But Martin Case Would Receive Different Treatement - Prosecuted First - No Immunity


As a result of the tragic and incomprehensible shooting of 17 year old Trayvon Martin in Florida -- much attention has been centered on Florida's No Duty To Retreat Law. The truth is Colorado has a caselaw version, (not a statutory or legislatively passed) version of the law for many years. In the case of Idrogo v. People decided by the Colorado Supreme Court in 1991, the Court held that that:

"an innocent victim of an assault is not bound to retreat before using deadly force when the use of such force is reasonable under the circumstances." The principle that you have no duty to retreat applies regardless of the level of force you employ to defend yourself.

Wihle there is always a requirement that the amount of force used be appropriate under Colorado law, one must be in fear of imminent serious bodily injury or death before one can use deadly force to defend themselves. But a person who is in fear of serious bodily injury or death need not retreat before using deadly force.

The law is codified in part under the affirmative defense to a charge of unlawful use of force in CRS 18-1-704.

The affirmative defense of self-defense is found at section 18-1-704, 8B C.R.S. (1986).

That statute states, in pertinent part, as follows:

(1) ... a person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he may use a degree of force which he reasonably believes to be necessary for that purpose.

(2) Deadly physical force may be used only if a person reasonably believes a lesser degree of force is inadequate and:

(a) The actor has reasonable ground to believe, and does believe, that he or another person is in imminent danger of being killed or of receiving great bodily injury....

Where Colorado DIFFERS from Florida is in the grant of immunity under the No Duty To Retreat Doctrine. Colorado ONLY offers immunity from prosecution (as opposed to raising the affirmative defense of self defense at a trial) in the so called Make My Day Case.

The "Make My Day" statute creates certain additional rights of self defense. Section 18-1-704.5, C.R.S. provides that the occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force against a person who has unlawfully entered the dwelling, if the occupant reasonably believes that the intruder has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime in addition to the unlawful entry and also reasonably believes that the intruder might use any physical force against any occupant.

The Colorado Make My Day Law goes further than other forms of self defense by providing for immunity from prosecution (as well as from civil liability) rather than merely establishing an affirmative defense. Section 18-1-704.5, C.R.S. provides that the occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force against a person who has unlawfully entered the dwelling, if the occupant reasonably believes that the intruder has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime in addition to the unlawful entry and also reasonably believes that the intruder might use any physical force against any occupant.

Florida's self-defense law has eliminated a citizen's duty to retreat before
using deadly force to confront an attacker AND the law includes a similar Make My Day provision that grants "immunity" from prosecution or civil suit if a person is deemed to have acted in self-defense, though lawmakers did not clearly specify exactly who bestows the immunity.

H. Michael's Take:

Colorado's Make My Day law makes sense to me. Also known as the so called "Castle Doctrine" the grant of immunity arises from a family protecting itself from intruders into their home. Our nation has always placed the home as the ultimate bastion of privacy - both for search warrant purposes and for arrest warrant requirements. It is a place where we have a constitutionally protected right to feel safe.

The extension of the Make My Day law, taken out of the home and onto the "street" - exists in one form or another in over 23 states. Colorado has taken a more intellegent and tempered response to the No Duty To Retreat Doctrine - and has, over the years, averted the problems we are now seeing in Florida in the Zimmerman case.

In Colorado Mr. Zimmerman would have been arrested - THEN he would have the right to raise self defense as an affirmative defense against the charge of Second Degree Murder...and a jury would decide if his actons were justified. That makes sense to me.


September 20, 2011

Colorado Court of Appeals Reverses Conviction - Breathes Life Into Colorado's Self Defense Laws


The failure of a Jefferson County District Court judge to properly instruct a jury on the Defendant, Albert Montoya's right of self defense - will probably lead to a completely new trial trial in the 2006 murder case.

Albert Montoya, in October of 2006 - fled a party in Wheatridge Colorado and fired back at a crowd of individuals chasing he and a friend from the location.

One of the bulletts fired by he and the codefendant struck and killed high school senior Mackenzie Kingry, four days before her 18th birthday.

The Colorado Court of Appleas ruled that the Jefferson County District Court judge who heard the case was required to properly instruct the jury on Colorado's law of elf defense. He should have told jurors to consider the number of people chasing the pair when they responded with gunfire, said the state court of appeals.

"There was some evidence that . . . at least one other guest had a gun which he fired as the defendant departed the house," wrote Judge Dennis Graham in an August decision that was amended Thursday.

"It was incumbent upon the trial court to give a self-defense instruction which embodied defendant's theory that he believed he was threatened by multiple assailants," Graham wrote.
Montoya was convicted of first-degree murder with extreme indifference, reckless manslaughter, criminally negligent homicide and accessory to a crime.

The appeals court left the last charge in place but reversed Montoya's convictions on all .

Judge Steve Bernard disagreed with part of the decision, saying the jury knew there was a crowd chasing Montoya and Duran and wasn't prohibited from taking the size of the crowd into consideration.

"This instruction properly set forth the general principle that the jury was required to evaluate the totality of the circumstances," Bernard wrote. ". . . The jury was informed that defendant's self-defense theory involved multiple assailants."

]The Denver Post was the source of this blog entry.

H. Michael's Take

To sqaure the law in this area with these facts -- it is important to read the actual jury instruction on self defense in Colorado - I have included it here as it is read to the jury in a trial where self defense is asserted as an affirmative defense:

H:18 USE OF PHYSICAL FORCE-DEADLY PHYSICAL FORCE (IMMINENT DANGER OF DEATH OR SERIOS BODILY INJURY BY VICTIM)

It is an affirmative defense to the crime of (Insert name of crime) that the defendant used deadly physical force:

1. in order to defend [himself] [or] [a third person] from what he reasonably believed to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by the other person,

2. he used a degree of force which he reasonably believed to be necessary for that purpose, and

3. he/she reasonably believed a lesser degree of force was inadequate, and

4. had reasonable grounds to believe, and did believe, that he or another person was in imminent danger of being killed or of receiving great bodily injury.

[The defendant is not required to retreat in order to claim the right to employ force in his/her defense.]

[The defendant is not justified in using physical force if:

1. with intent to cause bodily injury or death to another person,

2. he/she provoked the use of unlawful physical force by that person.]

[The defendant is not justified in using physical force if he/she is the initial aggressor, except that his/her use of physical force under the circumstances is justifiable
if:
1. he/she withdraws from the encounter, and

2. effectively communicates to the other person his/her intent to withdraw, and

3. the other person continues or threatens the use of unlawful physical force.]

[The defendant is not justified in using physical force if:

1. the physical force involved is the product of combat by agreement, and

2. the combat is not specifically authorized by law.]

In addition to proving all of the elements of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt, the prosecution also has the burden to disprove the affirmative defense
beyond a reasonable doubt.

After considering the evidence concerning the affirmative defense, with all the other evidence in this case, if you are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of
the defendant's guilt, you must return a verdict of not guilty.