8 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1995–2026 3 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. Speergreen2 sentences2025But “whether there is credible evidence to support each element of an affirmative defense is a question for the court rather than the jury.” People v. Speer, 255 P.3d 1115, 1119 (Colo. 2011); see also People v. Hill, 934 P.2d 821, 826 (Colo. 1997) (“If a trial court determines as an issue of law[] that no evidence exists in the record to support an affirmative defense, there is no issue of fact for the jury to resolve.”). ¶ 12 Under Colorado law, 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 2017See People v. Speer, 255 P.3d 1115 , 1119–20 (Colo. 2011). | 2 | 2 |
Thomas Pearson v. The People of the State of Colorado.green1 sentence2025Pearson v. People, 2022 CO 4, ¶ 16 (quoting § 18-1-407(1), C.R.S. 2025). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Hillgreen1 sentence2025But “whether there is credible evidence to support each element of an affirmative defense is a question for the court rather than the jury.” People v. Speer, 255 P.3d 1115, 1119 (Colo. 2011); see also People v. Hill, 934 P.2d 821, 826 (Colo. 1997) (“If a trial court determines as an issue of law[] that no evidence exists in the record to support an affirmative defense, there is no issue of fact for the jury to resolve.”). ¶ 12 Under Colorado law, 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 | 1 | 1 |
People v. Leegreen1 sentence2025See Lee, 30 P.3d at 689 . | 1 | 1 |
People v. Whatleygreen1 sentence2017People v. Whatley, 10 P.3d 668, 670 (Colo. App. 2000). ¶ 22 A defendant is entitled to an affirmative defense instruction embodying his theory of the case “if the record contains any evidence to support the theory, even if the supporting evidence consists only of highly improbable testimony by the defendant.” Garcia, 28 P.3d at 347 . ¶ 23 The affirmative defense of self-defense is codified in the first subsection of section 18-1-704, C.R.S. 2016. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Garciagreen1 sentence2011People v. Garcia, 113 P.3d 775, 783-84 (Colo.2005). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Marquezgreen1 sentence1995A defendant is not entitled to an instruction on an affirmative defense that, based on the evidence presented at trial, is “an impossibility.” People v. Marquez, 692 P.2d 1089, 1098 (Colo.1984). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Montaguegreen2 sentences1995See People v. Montague, 181 Colo. 143 , 508 P.2d 388 (1973). 1995See People v. Montague, 181 Colo. 143 , 508 P.2d 388 (1973). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Opana
green
1 sentence2026The threshold for entitlement to an instruction on an affirmative defense is “low,” but “not negligible.” People v. Opana, 2017 CO 56, ¶ 17 . ¶ 15 In Opana, the supreme court held that the determination of whether a defendant is entitled to a nondeadly force instruction, as well as a deadly force instruction, depends not on the defendant’s subjective intent but, rather, on the nature of the force the defendant used. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
People v. Stewart
green
1 sentence2025Defense counsel’s decision to forgo an instruction on an affirmative defense may well be a strategic decision to avoid presenting the jury with two patently inconsistent theories: “My client didn’t do it, and if he did he was justified!” But unless and until the supreme court opts to reconsider this aspect of its decision in People v. Stewart, 55 P.3d 107 (Colo. 2002), trial courts will have to continue to grapple with that scenario. 29 prosecution” for trying to save the People’s case or “pro-defendant” for acting as defendant’s co-counsel — or decline to inject the issue and risk reversal an | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Newell
green
1 sentence2025And in doing so, “we consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant.” Id. ¶ 11 “The small quantum of evidence that must appear in the record in order to warrant an instruction on an affirmative defense may come from any source, even from the prosecution.” Id. at ¶ 21; see also § 18-1-407(1) (“‘Affirmative defense’ means that unless the state’s evidence raises the issue involving the alleged defense, the defendant, to raise the issue, shall present some credible evidence on that issue.”). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Garcia
green
1 sentence2017People v. Whatley, 10 P.3d 668, 670 (Colo. App. 2000). ¶ 22 A defendant is entitled to an affirmative defense instruction embodying his theory of the case “if the record contains any evidence to support the theory, even if the supporting evidence consists only of highly improbable testimony by the defendant.” Garcia, 28 P.3d at 347 . ¶ 23 The affirmative defense of self-defense is codified in the first subsection of section 18-1-704, C.R.S. 2016. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
People v. Saavedra-Rodriguez
green
1 sentence2000The quantum of evidence that must appear in the record in order to warrant an instruction on an affirmative defense is "some credible evidence." People v. Saavedra-Rodriguez, 971 P.2d 223 (Colo.1998). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
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.