Colo. Rev. Stat. » Title 18
Colorado Revised Statutes

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1-702 (2026)

Choice of evils

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CO-LEGleg.colorado.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) Unless inconsistent with other provisions of sections 18- 1-703 to 18-1-707, defining justifiable use of physical force, or with some other provision of law, conduct which would otherwise constitute an offense is justifiable and not criminal when it is necessary as an emergency measure to avoid an imminent public or private injury which is about to occur by reason of a situation occasioned or developed through no conduct of the actor, and which is of sufficient gravity that, according to ordinary standards of intelligence and morality, the desirability and urgency of avoiding the injury clearly outweigh the desirability of avoiding the injury sought to be prevented by the statute defining the offense in issue.

(2) The necessity and justifiability of conduct under subsection (1) of this section shall not rest upon considerations pertaining only to the morality and advisability of the statute, either in its general application or with respect to its application to a particular class of cases arising thereunder. When evidence relating to the defense of justification under this section is offered by the defendant, before it is submitted for the consideration of the jury, the court shall first rule as a matter of law whether the claimed facts and circumstances would, if established, constitute a justification.

Source: L. 71: R&RE, p. 407, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 40-1-802.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 35 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1975–2026 · leading case: People v. Speer, 255 P.3d 1115 (Colo. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People v. Speer, 255 P.3d 1115 (Colo. 2011). · cites it 20× “" § 18-1-702, C.R.S. (2010) (emphasis added).”
Andrews v. People, 800 P.2d 607 (Colo. 1990). · cites it 36× “Prior to trial, the defendants jointly served notice of their intent to employ the choice of evils defense set forth in section 18-1-702, 8B C.R.S. (1986). The choice of evils defense was created by statute and may only be invoked when an offer of proof is made that establishes…”
People v. McKnight, 626 P.2d 678 (Colo. 1981). · cites it 18× “ncy measure to avoid an imminent public or private injury which is about to occur by reason of a situation occasioned or developed through no conduct of the actor, and which is of sufficient gravity that, according to ordinary standards of intelligence and morality, the…”
People v. Carbajal, 328 P.3d 104 (Colo. 2014). · cites it 14× “2d at 391 (emphasis added) (citing § 18-1-702, C.R.S. (1973)). We find nothing in People v.”
People v. Dover, 790 P.2d 834 (Colo. 1990). · cites it 18× “Both Strock and Handy involved the statutory choice of evils defense, section 18-1-702. Section 18-1-702 contains a foundational requirement that the trial court must first rule as a matter of law that the defendant’s claims, if established, would constitute a justification.”
People v. BRANTE, 232 P.3d 204 (Colo. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 7× “Law The affirmative defense of choice of evils is codified at section 18-1-702, C.R.S.2009, which provides, as pertinent here: [C]onduct which would otherwise constitute an offense is justifiable and not criminal when it is necessary as an emergency measure to avoid an imminent…”
People v. Al-Yousif, 206 P.3d 824 (Colo. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 10× “Section 18-1-702(1), C.R.S.2005. Before the defense may be invoked, the defendant must show that his or her conduct was necessitated by a specific and imminent threat of injury to his or her person under cireumstances that left the defendant no reasonable and viable alternative…”
People v. Brandyberry, 812 P.2d 674 (Colo. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 10× “Choice of evils, as defined by § 18-1-702, C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol. 8B), is potentially available as a defense to any criminal charge unless it is inconsistent with other enumerated affirmative defenses or other explicit provisions of the law.”
People v. Auman, 67 P.3d 741 (Colo. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 6× “Section 18-1-702, C.R.8.2002, recognizes the affirmative defense of choice of evils.”
People v. Shepherd, 43 P.3d 693 (Colo. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 4× “He erroneously relies, in this regard, upon the choice of evils principles embodied in § 18-1-702. Acting upon good motives is not, in and of itself, sufficient to invoke those principles to avoid responsibility for violating the law.”
v. Coahran, 2019 COA 6 (Colo. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “See § 18-1-702, C.R.S. 2018. The choice of evils affirmative defense arises where there is a sudden and unforeseen emergency and the actor must take action to prevent imminent injury.”
People v. Handy, 603 P.2d 941 (Colo. 1979). · cites it 6× “At his trial on the escape charge, Handy requested that the jury be instructed on the affirmative defenses of choice of evils, section 18-1-702, C.R.S. 1973 (now in 1978 Repl.”
Show all 35 citing cases →
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1-702(1) — 17 cases
People v. McKnight, 626 P.2d 678 (Colo. 1981). “ncy measure to avoid an imminent public or private injury which is about to occur by reason of a situation occasioned or developed through no conduct of the actor, and which is of sufficient gravity that, according to ordinary standards of intelligence and morality, the…”
People v. Speer, 255 P.3d 1115 (Colo. 2011). “" § 18-1-702, C.R.S. (2010) (emphasis added).”
People v. BRANTE, 232 P.3d 204 (Colo. Ct. App. 2009). “Law The affirmative defense of choice of evils is codified at section 18-1-702, C.R.S.2009, which provides, as pertinent here: [C]onduct which would otherwise constitute an offense is justifiable and not criminal when it is necessary as an emergency measure to avoid an imminent…”
People v. Dover, 790 P.2d 834 (Colo. 1990). “Both Strock and Handy involved the statutory choice of evils defense, section 18-1-702. Section 18-1-702 contains a foundational requirement that the trial court must first rule as a matter of law that the defendant’s claims, if established, would constitute a justification.”
People v. Carbajal, 328 P.3d 104 (Colo. 2014). “2d at 391 (emphasis added) (citing § 18-1-702, C.R.S. (1973)). We find nothing in People v.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1-702(2) — 13 cases
Andrews v. People, 800 P.2d 607 (Colo. 1990). “Prior to trial, the defendants jointly served notice of their intent to employ the choice of evils defense set forth in section 18-1-702, 8B C.R.S. (1986). The choice of evils defense was created by statute and may only be invoked when an offer of proof is made that establishes…”
People v. Al-Yousif, 206 P.3d 824 (Colo. Ct. App. 2006). “Section 18-1-702(1), C.R.S.2005. Before the defense may be invoked, the defendant must show that his or her conduct was necessitated by a specific and imminent threat of injury to his or her person under cireumstances that left the defendant no reasonable and viable alternative…”
People v. Shepherd, 43 P.3d 693 (Colo. Ct. App. 2001). “He erroneously relies, in this regard, upon the choice of evils principles embodied in § 18-1-702. Acting upon good motives is not, in and of itself, sufficient to invoke those principles to avoid responsibility for violating the law.”
People v. Auman, 67 P.3d 741 (Colo. Ct. App. 2003). “Section 18-1-702, C.R.8.2002, recognizes the affirmative defense of choice of evils.”
People v. BRANTE, 232 P.3d 204 (Colo. Ct. App. 2009). “Law The affirmative defense of choice of evils is codified at section 18-1-702, C.R.S.2009, which provides, as pertinent here: [C]onduct which would otherwise constitute an offense is justifiable and not criminal when it is necessary as an emergency measure to avoid an imminent…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.