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.
5 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 2009–2022 1 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. Robertsgreen2 sentences2015However, the self-defense law instruction shall not be an affirmative defense instruction and the prosecuting attorney shall not have the burden of disproving self-defense. 120 In Pickering, the supreme court explained that section 18-1-704(4) requires "trial courts to instruct the jury in such cases regarding the law of self-defense and to explain to the jury that it may consider evidence of self-defense in determining whether a defendant acted recklessly or with extreme indifference or with criminal negligence." 276 P.8d at 556; see also Bachofer, 192 P.3d at 463 ("The trial court should ins 2015See § 18-1-704(4); Pickering, 276 P.3d at 556 ; Duran, 272 P.3d at 1099 ; Bachofer, 192 P.3d at 463 (Contradictory jury instructions regarding self-defense are "plainly wrong."); Roberts, 983 P.2d at 14 . 132 Even if we assume that the exact scope of the "self-defense law instruction" required by section 18-1-704(4) is ambiguous, it should have been obvious to the trial court that Instruction Number 19 would have confused or misled the jury. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Durangreen2 sentences2015However, the self-defense law instruction shall not be an affirmative defense instruction and the prosecuting attorney shall not have the burden of disproving self-defense. 120 In Pickering, the supreme court explained that section 18-1-704(4) requires "trial courts to instruct the jury in such cases regarding the law of self-defense and to explain to the jury that it may consider evidence of self-defense in determining whether a defendant acted recklessly or with extreme indifference or with criminal negligence." 276 P.8d at 556; see also Bachofer, 192 P.3d at 463 ("The trial court should ins 2015Id. (holding that section 18-1-704(4) "mandates provocation and initial aggressor instructions in cases where self-defense is asserted as an element-negating offense"). {22 These decisions are reflected in the 2014 Model Criminal Jury Instructions, which were not in effect at the time of McClelland's trial. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Laragreen1 sentence2011Finally, the fourth clause, at issue here, clarifies that the self-defense law instruction required in such cases is not an affirmative defense instruction and that the prosecution does not bear the burden of disproving self-defense. 5 In Lara, a case involving a charge of first-degree murder and a charge of extreme indifference murder, the trial court instructed the jury, tracking the language of the fourth clause of section 18-1-704(4), that the prosecution did not bear the burden of disproving self-defense. 224 P.3d at 392, 394 . | 1 | 1 |
People v. Bachofergreen1 sentence2009This section shall not apply to strict Hability crimes. § 18-1-704(4); see People v. Bachofer, 192 P.3d 454, 463 (Colo.App.2008) ("The trial court should instruct the jury that, in deter *394 mining whether the defendant acted recklessly, it must consider whether the defendant reasonably believed it necessary for him to defend himself or another person from the victim's use or imminent use of unlawful physical foree." (citing People v. Roberts, 983 P.2d 11, 14 (Colo.App.1998)) ). | 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. Pickering
green
2 sentences2020Pickering, 276 P.3d at 557 . 2015See § 18-1-704(4); Pickering, 276 P.3d at 556 ; Duran, 272 P.3d at 1099 ; Bachofer, 192 P.3d at 463 (Contradictory jury instructions regarding self-defense are "plainly wrong."); Roberts, 983 P.2d at 14 . 132 Even if we assume that the exact scope of the "self-defense law instruction" required by section 18-1-704(4) is ambiguous, it should have been obvious to the trial court that Instruction Number 19 would have confused or misled the jury. | 2 | 2015–2020 |
Roberts v. People
green
1 sentence2022Roberts , ¶ 22, 399 P.3d at 705 . ¶20 With these principles in mind, we next review the underlying charge in this case-harassment-and the requirements that a defendant must satisfy to assert a claim of self-defense as an affirmative defense. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Jolly v. People
green
1 sentence2011Section 18-1-704(4) requires trial courts to: (1) allow defendants to present evidence of self-defense; (2) give a "self-defense law instruction" where evidence of self-defense is presented; and (8) inform the jury that it may consider self-defense evidence "in determining whether the defendant acted recklessly, with extreme indifference, or in a criminally negligent manner." In contrast, although the statute states the prosecution has no burden to disprove self-defense, it does not require that juries be so informed: "[The self-defense law instruction shall not be an affirmative defense instr | 1 | 2011–2011 |
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.