2018 CO 83
Colo.2018Background
- Defendant Edward DeGreat rode a taxi home, was allegedly four dollars short, and offered to fetch the remainder from his apartment; the driver locked the doors and called the police.
- A physical altercation occurred; DeGreat testified the driver attacked him, the driver brandished something, and DeGreat stabbed the driver in what he claimed was self-defense.
- DeGreat admitted he did not pay the taxi fare; prosecutors charged him with attempted second-degree murder, first-degree assault, aggravated robbery, and related crimes of violence.
- The trial court instructed the jury on self-defense for murder and assault charges but refused DeGreat's requested self-defense instruction on the aggravated robbery count, relying on People v. Beebe and People v. Laurson.
- The jury convicted DeGreat of aggravated robbery and related counts but acquitted him on charges where self-defense instructions were given; the court of appeals reversed the aggravated robbery conviction, concluding self-defense could apply.
- The Colorado Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether statutory self-defense can justify taking services (robbery) and affirmed the court of appeals, holding that on these unique facts DeGreat presented some credible evidence entitling him to a self-defense instruction as to aggravated robbery.
Issues
| Issue | People’s Argument | DeGreat’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether self-defense can be an affirmative defense to aggravated robbery for taking taxi services | Self-defense is not an affirmative defense to aggravated robbery; Beebe/Laurson support refusing instruction | Self-defense applies because robbery here involved a knowing taking of services entangled with DeGreat’s use of force to defend himself | On these facts, yes: defendant presented some credible evidence entitling jury instruction; conviction remanded for retrial |
| Whether Pickering requires self-defense instruction for all crimes requiring intent/knowledge | Pickering doesn’t broadly require that for all intent/knowledge crimes | Pickering supports self-defense instruction for general intent crimes like robbery | Court clarified Pickering is not that broad and did not rely on it; nonetheless found instruction warranted on case facts |
| Whether DeGreat met the evidentiary threshold to submit self-defense to the jury | Argued evidence did not credibly show taking was in self-defense | DeGreat testified he used force to stop assault, driver fled, and he left without paying — some credible evidence | Held DeGreat met the relatively lenient threshold for an affirmative-defense instruction |
| Whether trial-court error was harmless given acquittals on other counts | Error was harmless because jury rejected self-defense for stabbing (convicted of reckless assault) | Error was prejudicial because jury acquitted charges where self-defense was instructed, suggesting they may have credited the defense if instructed on robbery | Court held error was not harmless and ordered new trial on aggravated robbery and related violence count |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Pickering, 276 P.3d 553 (Colo. 2011) (discussed distinctions between defenses that negate elements and affirmative justification defenses)
- Roberts v. People, 399 P.3d 702 (Colo. 2017) (clarified limits of Pickering and jury-instruction duty)
- People v. Beebe, 557 P.2d 840 (Colo. App. 1976) (previous division rule that self-defense is not a defense to aggravated robbery)
- People v. Laurson, 15 P.3d 791 (Colo. App. 2000) (cited Beebe for same proposition)
- People v. Garcia, 113 P.3d 775 (Colo. 2005) (defendant must present some credible evidence to raise an affirmative defense)
- Lybarger v. People, 807 P.2d 570 (Colo. 1991) (defendant’s testimony, even if improbable, may suffice to raise self-defense)
- People v. Moseley, 566 P.2d 331 (Colo. 1977) (robbery requires no specific intent to permanently deprive)
- Case v. People, 774 P.2d 866 (Colo. 1989) (distinguishing traverse/denial defenses from justification defenses)
- People v. Fink, 574 P.2d 81 (Colo. 1978) (discussion of self-defense and how it interacts with offense elements)