People v. Pickering
276 P.3d 553
| Colo. | 2011Background
- Pickering stabbed Villarreal during an apartment confrontation; charged with second-degree murder; trial court gave an elemental murder instruction and a reckless manslaughter instruction, with a carrying instruction linking self-defense to recklessness.
- Self-defense was presented as a potential defense; the trial court did not give a dedicated self-defense instruction for the reckless manslaughter charge, but did for the greater charge.
- The court of appeals reversed the reckless manslaughter conviction based on Lara and Taylor, alleging the carrying instruction impermissibly shifted the burden by suggesting the People need not disprove self-defense.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine whether the Lara/Taylor line of cases correctly interpreted §18-1-704(4)’s fourth clause and burden assignment.
- The Court held that the trial court’s carrying instruction stating the prosecution does not bear the burden to disprove self-defense was accurate and did not shift the burden; Lara and Taylor were overruled.
- Dissent by Justice Martinez argued the instruction did shift the burden and was misleading, citing Patterson and Winship and urging reversal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the §18-1-704(4) instruction correctly state the burden? | Pickering: Lara/Taylor misread; burden is shifted. | People: instruction correctly reflects law; no shifting burden. | Yes; instruction accurate, Lara and Taylor overruled. |
| Is self-defense an affirmative defense for recklessness-based crimes? | Self-defense negates recklessness element; burden should lie with People to disprove. | Self-defense is a defense but not an affirmative defense for recklessness; burden remains on prosecution for elements. | Self-defense is not an affirmative defense for recklessness; burden remains with People to prove elements. |
| Does the carry instruction create conflict with the need to prove recklessness beyond a reasonable doubt? | Incompatible instructions risk misdirecting burden; jurors may misinterpret. | No error; instruction correctly states law under §18-1-704(4). | No reversible error; instruction is proper when elements are correctly stated. |
| Should Lara/Taylor govern the trial court’s burden-shifting analysis here? | Lara/Taylor should govern; they require reversal. | Lara/Taylor misapplied; Court should overrule them. | Lara and Taylor are overruled; holding next. |
| Did the majority’s reasoning adequately address due process concerns under Martin/Patterson/Winship? | Instruction violates due process by shifting the burden and misrepresenting the State's proof. | Decision aligns with constitutional requirements; no due process violation. | Majority conclusion stands; no due process violation identified in the instruction. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Lara, 224 P.3d 388 (Colo.App. 2009) (reversed on burden-shifting concerns under §18-1-704(4))
- People v. Taylor, 230 P.3d 1227 (Colo.App. 2009) (extension of Lara's burden-shifting concerns)
- Martin v. Ohio, 480 U.S. 228 (U.S. 1987) (self-defense can be raised without negating elements, but due process requires proper instructions)
- Patterson v. New York, 432 U.S. 197 (U.S. 1977) (affirmative defenses negating elements implicate constitutional burden on prosecution)
- United States v. Leahy, 473 F.3d 401 (1st Cir. 2007) (prosecution burden when defense does not negate an element)
- People v. Fink, 194 Colo. 516 (Colo. 1978) (reaffirmed inverse relationship between self-defense and recklessness; no specific self-defense instruction needed)
- Case v. People, 774 P.2d 866 (Colo. 1989) (recklessness negates self-defense; conduct inconsistent with self-defense)
- Francis v. Franklin, 471 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1985) (due process concerns with conflicting jury instructions)
- United States v. Unser, 165 F.3d 755 (10th Cir. 1999) (burden on defense when defense does not negate an element)