given exception in Colorado

2026As a general rule, “jury instructions 15 framed in the language of statutes are usually adequate and proper.” Zukowski, 260 P.3d at 343 . ¶ 35 Next, we agree with the People that while the Vigil court clarified that “the facts of the actual injury” determine whether there was a substantial risk of death rather than the “risk generally associated with the type of conduct or injury in question[,]” it did not conclude that the statute was ambiguous.

2011Thus, we reasoned, under the given instruction, Jones's fear of physical violence "from others acting in concert with his principle assailant became an irrelevant consideration and thereby vitiated [Jones's] right to act upon reasonable appearances in a multiple assailant attack." Id.

2011We then articulated the general rule, applicable here, that the trier of fact in a self-defense case involving multiple assailants must consider the "totality of the cireum-stances, including the number of persons reasonably appearing to be threatening the ac cused, ... in evaluating the reasonableness of the accused's belief in the necessity of defensive action and the reasonableness of force used by him to repel the apparent danger." Id.

2001The court concluded that the missing statutory language was not structural error because the language of the given instruction "adequately directs the jury to determine whether the defendant had the requisite mens rea of the crime, because the defendant could not have intended his participation to further the crime unless he also intended the [underlying] crime to occur." Bogdanov v. People, supra, 941 P.2d at 254 .

1990People v. Boff, 766 P.2d 646 (Colo.1988).

1977Even within the scope of a given exception, the search must still meet the ultimate requirement of “reasonableness.” See, e.g., South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 , 96 S.Ct. 3092 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1000 (1976) (inventory search); Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266 , 93 S.Ct. 2535 , 37 L.Ed.2d 596 (1973) (automobile); Vale v. Louisiana, 399 U.S. 30 , 90 S.Ct. 1969 , 26 L.Ed.2d 409 (1970) (probable cause plus exigent circumstances); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968) (stop-and-frisk); People v. Counterman, supra (inventory search); People v. Gurule, 172 C

1977Even within the scope of a given exception, the search must still meet the ultimate requirement of “reasonableness.” See, e.g., South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 , 96 S.Ct. 3092 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1000 (1976) (inventory search); Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266 , 93 S.Ct. 2535 , 37 L.Ed.2d 596 (1973) (automobile); Vale v. Louisiana, 399 U.S. 30 , 90 S.Ct. 1969 , 26 L.Ed.2d 409 (1970) (probable cause plus exigent circumstances); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968) (stop-and-frisk); People v. Counterman, supra (inventory search); People v. Gurule, 172 C

1977Even within the scope of a given exception, the search must still meet the ultimate requirement of “reasonableness.” See, e.g., South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 , 96 S.Ct. 3092 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1000 (1976) (inventory search); Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266 , 93 S.Ct. 2535 , 37 L.Ed.2d 596 (1973) (automobile); Vale v. Louisiana, 399 U.S. 30 , 90 S.Ct. 1969 , 26 L.Ed.2d 409 (1970) (probable cause plus exigent circumstances); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968) (stop-and-frisk); People v. Counterman, supra (inventory search); People v. Gurule, 172 C

1977Even within the scope of a given exception, the search must still meet the ultimate requirement of “reasonableness.” See, e.g., South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 , 96 S.Ct. 3092 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1000 (1976) (inventory search); Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266 , 93 S.Ct. 2535 , 37 L.Ed.2d 596 (1973) (automobile); Vale v. Louisiana, 399 U.S. 30 , 90 S.Ct. 1969 , 26 L.Ed.2d 409 (1970) (probable cause plus exigent circumstances); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968) (stop-and-frisk); People v. Counterman, supra (inventory search); People v. Gurule, 172 C

1977Even within the scope of a given exception, the search must still meet the ultimate requirement of “reasonableness.” See, e.g., South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 , 96 S.Ct. 3092 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1000 (1976) (inventory search); Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266 , 93 S.Ct. 2535 , 37 L.Ed.2d 596 (1973) (automobile); Vale v. Louisiana, 399 U.S. 30 , 90 S.Ct. 1969 , 26 L.Ed.2d 409 (1970) (probable cause plus exigent circumstances); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968) (stop-and-frisk); People v. Counterman, supra (inventory search); People v. Gurule, 172 C

1977Even within the scope of a given exception, the search must still meet the ultimate requirement of “reasonableness.” See, e.g., South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 , 96 S.Ct. 3092 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1000 (1976) (inventory search); Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266 , 93 S.Ct. 2535 , 37 L.Ed.2d 596 (1973) (automobile); Vale v. Louisiana, 399 U.S. 30 , 90 S.Ct. 1969 , 26 L.Ed.2d 409 (1970) (probable cause plus exigent circumstances); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968) (stop-and-frisk); People v. Counterman, supra (inventory search); People v. Gurule, 172 C

1977Even within the scope of a given exception, the search must still meet the ultimate requirement of “reasonableness.” See, e.g., South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 , 96 S.Ct. 3092 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1000 (1976) (inventory search); Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266 , 93 S.Ct. 2535 , 37 L.Ed.2d 596 (1973) (automobile); Vale v. Louisiana, 399 U.S. 30 , 90 S.Ct. 1969 , 26 L.Ed.2d 409 (1970) (probable cause plus exigent circumstances); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968) (stop-and-frisk); People v. Counterman, supra (inventory search); People v. Gurule, 172 C

1977Even within the scope of a given exception, the search must still meet the ultimate requirement of “reasonableness.” See, e.g., South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 , 96 S.Ct. 3092 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1000 (1976) (inventory search); Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266 , 93 S.Ct. 2535 , 37 L.Ed.2d 596 (1973) (automobile); Vale v. Louisiana, 399 U.S. 30 , 90 S.Ct. 1969 , 26 L.Ed.2d 409 (1970) (probable cause plus exigent circumstances); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968) (stop-and-frisk); People v. Counterman, supra (inventory search); People v. Gurule, 172 C

1977Even within the scope of a given exception, the search must still meet the ultimate requirement of “reasonableness.” See, e.g., South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 , 96 S.Ct. 3092 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1000 (1976) (inventory search); Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266 , 93 S.Ct. 2535 , 37 L.Ed.2d 596 (1973) (automobile); Vale v. Louisiana, 399 U.S. 30 , 90 S.Ct. 1969 , 26 L.Ed.2d 409 (1970) (probable cause plus exigent circumstances); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968) (stop-and-frisk); People v. Counterman, supra (inventory search); People v. Gurule, 172 C

1977Even within the scope of a given exception, the search must still meet the ultimate requirement of “reasonableness.” See, e.g., South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 , 96 S.Ct. 3092 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1000 (1976) (inventory search); Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266 , 93 S.Ct. 2535 , 37 L.Ed.2d 596 (1973) (automobile); Vale v. Louisiana, 399 U.S. 30 , 90 S.Ct. 1969 , 26 L.Ed.2d 409 (1970) (probable cause plus exigent circumstances); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968) (stop-and-frisk); People v. Counterman, supra (inventory search); People v. Gurule, 172 C

1970The given instruction was apparently based upon the case of Hynes v. Donaldson, 155 Colo. 456 , 395 P.2d 221 , in which the court stated: "Under the circumstances, we hold that a servant while lodging in a public accommodation, preparing to eat, or while going to or returning from a meal, is performing an act necessarily incident to his employment." In the instant case McQueen was on his way from his motel to pick up a girl friend for a pre-planned social evening which conceivably included eating dinner.

1970The given instruction was apparently based upon the case of Hynes v. Donaldson, 155 Colo. 456 , 395 P.2d 221 , in which the court stated: "Under the circumstances, we hold that a servant while lodging in a public accommodation, preparing to eat, or while going to or returning from a meal, is performing an act necessarily incident to his employment." In the instant case McQueen was on his way from his motel to pick up a girl friend for a pre-planned social evening which conceivably included eating dinner.

1965In the case of Globe Bank v. McLean, 84 Colo. 207 , 269 Pac. 9 , the court stated: “* * * Two well established principles governing the interpretation of contracts must be borne in mind: (a) In case of doubt a contract is construed most strongly against him who drafted it. (b) Where a doubt exists as to the proper construction of a given clause, it should be construed in favor of him for whose protection it was obviously inserted. * * These two principles are applicable here and strengthen the ruling o'f the trial court.

1965In the case of Globe Bank v. McLean, 84 Colo. 207 , 269 Pac. 9 , the court stated: “* * * Two well established principles governing the interpretation of contracts must be borne in mind: (a) In case of doubt a contract is construed most strongly against him who drafted it. (b) Where a doubt exists as to the proper construction of a given clause, it should be construed in favor of him for whose protection it was obviously inserted. * * These two principles are applicable here and strengthen the ruling o'f the trial court.