2014 CO 60
Colo.2014Background
- In Sept. 2009 Pueblo police executed a valid search warrant at Carbajal's residence during an unrelated investigation and found three handguns.
- Carbajal, a felon, was charged with three counts of possession of a weapon by a previous offender (POWPO) under § 18-12-108(1), (2)(a) C.R.S. (2013).
- At trial Carbajal claimed the weapons were for defense of home, person, and property and presented supporting incidents.
- Over Carbajal's objection, the trial court modified the stock POWPO jury instruction to require a reasonable belief of a threat of imminent harm, and Carbajal was convicted on two counts.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, holding the modified instruction violated Ford/Blue and improperly affected substantial rights.
- The Colorado Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed the Court of Appeals, holding that POWPO defense is grounded in the choice of evils statute and that the modified instruction was proper; a dissent argued against imposing an imminent-harm requirement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether POWPO affirmative defense follows the choice of evils rule | Carbajal argues no choice of evils framing; Blue controls | People argue defense is tied to choice of evils with imminent-harm element | Yes; defense is grounded in the choice of evils statute. |
| Whether the trial court could modify the stock instruction to add imminent-harm language | Carbajal asserts unmodified stock instruction should be used | People contend modification aligns with Blue/Ford interpretation | Yes; court did not err in adding the imminent-harm language. |
| Whether Ford/Blue require a different approach to POWPO defenses | Carbajal relies on Ford to keep Blue's rationale | People rely on Blue as integrated with choice of evils defense | No; POWPO defense is still the choice of evils framework. |
| Constitutional impact of current POWPO statute on right to bear arms | Carbajal's broad POWPO prohibits felons from possessing arms | State's police power can regulate weapon possession | POWPO constitutional when read with choice of evils; no invalidation. |
| Whether the majority should overrule Ford | Ford should stand as controlling | Court should uphold decision to modify instruction | Court declines to overturn Ford; majority adheres to precedent. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Blue, 190 Colo. 95, 544 P.2d 385 (Colo. 1975) (POWPO read with choice of evils; imminent-injury concept discussed)
- People v. Ford, 193 Colo. 462, 568 P.2d 28 (Colo. 1977) (affirmative defense decided by jury; defense based on home/person/property)
- Cassels v. People, 92 P.3d 951 (Colo. 2004) (statutory jury instruction duties and legal standards)
- Day v. Johnson, 255 P.3d 1064 (Colo. 2011) (de novo review of jury instructions; legal accuracy)
- People v. Strock, 623 P.2d 42 (Colo. 1981) (choice of evils defense prerequisites)