Peo v. Young, 21CA1789

Fredrick Stanley Young was convicted by a jury of second degree murder in the death of his wife, J.Y., after a night of heavy drinking and an altercation at home.
Young admitted to killing J.Y. but claimed it was an accident during a struggle when he tried to restrain her to prevent further physical attacks.
The jury was instructed on first degree murder and lesser included offenses (second degree murder, manslaughter, and criminally negligent homicide), but not on the potential mitigating circumstance of heat of passion.
Young requested a heat of passion instruction, arguing that the evidence could support it, but the trial court denied the request.
The trial court sentenced Young to forty-four years in prison; the mittimus incorrectly stated Young pleaded guilty rather than being found guilty by a jury.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was there sufficient evidence for a heat of passion instruction?	No evidence of sudden loss of self-control or provocation.	Evidence showed provocation could have triggered heat of passion.	No sufficient evidence; instruction properly denied.
Should the mittimus be corrected?	Correction is appropriate for accuracy.	Correction needed to reflect jury verdict.	Mittimus should be corrected to reflect jury verdict.

Cassels v. People, 92 P.3d 951 (Colo. 2004) (establishes standard for jury instructions where evidence supports the defendant's claim)
People v. Sepulveda, 65 P.3d 1002 (Colo. 2003) (defines 'heat of passion' for homicide mitigation)