Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
16 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1991–2026 8 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Colorado courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Pickeringgreen2 sentences2026We disagree. ¶ 41 “An affirmative defense essentially admits the defendant’s commission of the elements of the charged act but seeks to justify, excuse, or mitigate the commission of the act.” Roberts v. People, 2017 CO 76, ¶ 20 , 399 P.3d 702, 705 ; see People v. Pickering, 276 P.3d 553, 555 (Colo. 2011) (noting that affirmative defenses admit “the defendant’s commission of the elements of the charged act, but seek to justify, excuse, or mitigate the commission of the act”). ¶ 42 The elements of first and second degree murder, coupled with the facts surrounding Nichols’s death, demonstrate wh 2025The court rejected this instruction as well, ruling that “pointing [the jury] directly at only one thing” would be confusing in light of the fact that the jury would necessarily have to consider the totality of the circumstances when it decided whether to apply the provocation exception to the affirmative defense of self-defense and when it determined the “reasonableness” of Villegas-Ortega’s actions. ¶ 14 At the close of trial, the court instructed the jury on the affirmative defense of self-defense with respect to the offenses requiring a mental state of “intentional” or “knowing,” and it pr | 2 | 2 |
Castillo v. Peoplegreen2 sentences2025Hagos, ¶ 12; see also Castillo v. People, 2018 CO 62, ¶¶ 55-56 (reviewing an initial aggressor jury instruction for nonconstitutional harmless error). ¶ 24 When instructing the jury on the affirmative defense of self- defense, a trial court should also provide instructions on the exceptions to self-defense if some evidence supports them. 2020JUSTICE MÁRQUEZ dissents, and JUSTICE GABRIEL and JUSTICE HART join in the dissent. ¶1 Though our court doesn’t have a time machine built out of a DeLorean,1 today we circle back to 2018 to answer a question we left open in Castillo v. People, 2018 CO 62 , ¶¶ 35–37, 421 P.3d 1141 , 1147: When a trial court instructs the jury on the affirmative defense of self-defense, what quantum of proof is required to instruct the jury about an exception to that defense? | 1 | 2 |
People v. Speergreen1 sentence2019See id. (affirmative defense of duress requires a specific and imminent threat of injury). 5 ¶ 53 We therefore conclude that the district court didn’t err in refusing to instruct the jury on the affirmative defense of duress for the aggravated robbery charges. 5We also observe that Flores wasn’t always with Leyba when they were in the house. 27 D. | 1 | 1 |
Askew v. Geracegreen1 sentence1997See Askew v. Gerace, supra (testimony of police officer that plaintiff was not wearing a seatbelt was sufficient evidence to instruct the jury on the seat belt defense). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
v. People
green
2 sentences2026When the court instructs the jury on the affirmative defense of self-defense, it must also instruct the jury on any exception to that defense that is supported by “some evidence.” Galvan v. People, 2020 CO 82, ¶ 25 . 2024Galvan v. People , 2020 CO 82, ¶ 19 . ¶ 12 When a court instructs the jury on the affirmative defense of self- defense, “it should instruct the jury on the provocation exception or any other exception to that defense if the exc eption is supported by some evidence.” Id. at ¶ 25. | 4 | 2024–2026 |
v. Roberts-Bicking
green
2 sentences2025“An initial aggressor instruction is warranted 6 when the evidence suggests the defendant initiated the physical conflict by using or threatening imminent use of unlawful physical force.” People v. Roberts-Bicking, 2021 COA 12, ¶ 33 . ¶ 17 “[W]hen the trial court instructs the jury on the affirmative defense of self-defense, it should instruct the jury on . . . any . . . exception to that defense if the exception is supported by some evidence.” Galvan, ¶ 25 (emphasis added). 2024“To qualify as ‘some 5 evidence,’ the evidence must be such as would support a reasonable inference that the accused was the initial aggressor o r provoked the other person into attacking (or appearing to attack) him.” People v. Roberts-Bicking , 2021 COA 12 , ¶ 31 . | 3 | 2024–2025 |
Roberts v. People
green
2 sentences2026We disagree. ¶ 41 “An affirmative defense essentially admits the defendant’s commission of the elements of the charged act but seeks to justify, excuse, or mitigate the commission of the act.” Roberts v. People, 2017 CO 76, ¶ 20 , 399 P.3d 702, 705 ; see People v. Pickering, 276 P.3d 553, 555 (Colo. 2011) (noting that affirmative defenses admit “the defendant’s commission of the elements of the charged act, but seek to justify, excuse, or mitigate the commission of the act”). ¶ 42 The elements of first and second degree murder, coupled with the facts surrounding Nichols’s death, demonstrate wh 2026We disagree. ¶ 41 “An affirmative defense essentially admits the defendant’s commission of the elements of the charged act but seeks to justify, excuse, or mitigate the commission of the act.” Roberts v. People, 2017 CO 76, ¶ 20 , 399 P.3d 702, 705 ; see People v. Pickering, 276 P.3d 553, 555 (Colo. 2011) (noting that affirmative defenses admit “the defendant’s commission of the elements of the charged act, but seek to justify, excuse, or mitigate the commission of the act”). ¶ 42 The elements of first and second degree murder, coupled with the facts surrounding Nichols’s death, demonstrate wh | 1 | 2026–2026 |
People v. Opana
green
1 sentence2026It is not error for a court to refuse to instruct the jury on the affirmative defense of ordinary physical force in instances where there was “no evidence from which the jury could have found that the defendant’s use of physical force upon the victim was anything other than deadly physical force.” People v. Opana, 2017 CO 56, ¶ 17 . 36 2. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
People v. Ford
green
1 sentence2014This instruction is based on the language in Ford, in which we determined that a POWPO defendant "who presents competent evidence showing that his purpose in possessing weapons was the defense of his home, person, and property thereby raises an affirmative defense." 193 Colo. at 462 , 568 P.2d at 28 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Dunton v. People
green
1 sentence2001IIL Defendant contends the trial court committed reversible error by relying on Dunton v. People, 898 P.2d 571 (Colo.1995), and its progeny and by refusing to instruct the jury on the affirmative defense of consent concerning the charges of second degree assault by penetration and second degree assault by intrusion. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
People v. Montgomery
green
1 sentence1999Cf. People v. Montgomery, 743 P.2d 439 (Colo.App.1987); People v. Schlicht, 709 P.2d 94 (Colo.App.1985). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
People v. Schlicht
neutral
1 sentence1999Cf. People v. Montgomery, 743 P.2d 439 (Colo.App.1987); People v. Schlicht, 709 P.2d 94 (Colo.App.1985). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
People v. Braley
green
1 sentence1995See People v. Montague, supra; People v. Jones, supra. Moreover, we note that here, unlike in People v. Braley, supra, the trial court did not give, and was not asked to give, an instruction regarding defendant’s theory of the case. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
People v. Jones
green
1 sentence1995See People v. Montague, supra; People v. Jones, supra. Moreover, we note that here, unlike in People v. Braley, supra, the trial court did not give, and was not asked to give, an instruction regarding defendant’s theory of the case. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
People v. Thomson
green
2 sentences1991In affirming the judgment, the court of appeals acknowledged that this court’s decision in People v. Thomson, 197 Colo. 232 , 591 P.2d 1031 (1979), required a trial court to instruct the jury, at the defendant’s request, on the consequences of an insanity verdict, but then offered the following rationale for distinguishing the Thomson decision from a trial on the affirmative defense of impaired mental condition: Impaired mental condition ... is an affirmative defense addressed at the trial on the merits. 1991In affirming the judgment, the court of appeals acknowledged that this court’s decision in People v. Thomson, 197 Colo. 232 , 591 P.2d 1031 (1979), required a trial court to instruct the jury, at the defendant’s request, on the consequences of an insanity verdict, but then offered the following rationale for distinguishing the Thomson decision from a trial on the affirmative defense of impaired mental condition: Impaired mental condition ... is an affirmative defense addressed at the trial on the merits. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.