2014 COA 48
Colo. Ct. App.2014Background
- Lane is convicted by jury of second degree murder and receives a 45-year sentence with restitution to three siblings.
- Victim met Lane at a Denver bar; they used crack cocaine in Lane's Aurora motel room and the victim spent the night.
- Lane claims he stabbed the victim thirteen times in self-defense during an alleged sexual assault while intoxicated.
- The trial court admitted/denied several jury instructions and excluded certain expert and lay testimony related to Lane's mental state.
- Lane challenges the restitution order, arguing statutory limits restrict awards to a single sibling.
- The appellate court affirms the judgment and restitution order, after reviewing the issues on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intoxication and deadly force instruction | Lane contends instruction on intoxication and deadly force should have been given. | Lane argues the instruction better reflects law on self-defense and intoxication. | Instruction rejected; no reversible error. |
| Reasonable person/self-defense instruction | Lane argues the self-defense instruction misstates subjective vs. objective components. | Vasquez-based language appropriately balances subjective and objective considerations. | No reversible error; instruction allowed. |
| Self-defense burden of proof instruction | Smith/Pickering considerations potentially require the prosecution to disprove self-defense for certain charges. | Pickering controls; self-defense is not an affirmative defense to lesser-included charges. | Smith did not overrule Pickering; court did not err. |
| Expert and lay testimony on mental state | Lane should be allowed expert and lay testimony about PTSD and prior abuse to show mental state. | Legislation and rules require court-ordered examination and limit lay expert testimony; probative value outweighed by risks. | Court did not abuse discretion; testimony properly limited. |
| Cross-examination of D.B. | Defense should be allowed to fully explore D.B.'s prior felony background to assess credibility. | Cross-examination limited to probative value and avoiding prejudice. | Trial court's limitations on cross-examination upheld. |
| Restitution to victim's siblings | Statutory reading may restrict restitution to one sibling. | Statute should be read to limit to a single representative. | Restitution awarded to all three siblings permissible. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Vasquez, 148 P.3d 326 (Colo. App. 2006) (reasonable-person standard; intoxication not controlling for deadly-force analysis)
- People v. Pickering, 276 P.3d 558 (Colo. 2011) (distinguishes affirmative defenses vs. elemental traverses; burden-shifting rules)
- People v. Rodriguez, 888 P.2d 278 (Colo. App. 1994) (self-defense standard focuses on defendant's reasonable belief)
- Evans v. People, 706 P.2d 795 (Colo. 1985) (judicial treatment of jury instruction practices)