Roberts v. People
2017 CO 76
| Colo. | 2017Background
- Monica Roberts was charged with third-degree assault and harassment after punching her estranged husband during an altercation; she was acquitted of assault but convicted of harassment and sentenced to probation.
- Harassment under § 18-9-111(1)(a) requires proof that the defendant acted "with intent to harass, annoy, or alarm" and involves touching or physical contact.
- At trial Roberts asserted self-defense; she proffered two jury instructions treating self-defense as an affirmative defense to harassment (requiring the prosecution to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt), both were rejected.
- The trial court instructed that self-defense is not an affirmative defense to reckless offenses but that self-defense evidence could be considered when evaluating intent; the jury convicted Roberts of harassment.
- Roberts appealed arguing, based on People v. Pickering, that self-defense must be treated as an affirmative defense for all crimes requiring intent (including harassment), and thus the prosecution should have borne the burden to disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The district court affirmed; the Colorado Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether self-defense is an affirmative defense to the specific-intent crime of harassment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether self-defense is an affirmative defense to the specific-intent crime of harassment | Roberts: Pickering means self-defense is an affirmative defense for all crimes requiring intent, so jury must be instructed that prosecution must disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt | People: Self-defense is a traverse when it negates an element (intent) and need not be treated as an affirmative defense in every intent crime; Pickering did not announce a broad rule | Court: Rejected Roberts’ reading of Pickering; Pickering’s language was dictum and did not create a bright-line rule. On these facts, self-defense functions as an element-negating traverse for harassment, so no affirmative-defense instruction was required |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Pickering, 276 P.3d 553 (Colo. 2011) (distinguishes self-defense as a traverse for reckless crimes and notes it can be an affirmative defense for some intent crimes)
- People v. Huckleberry, 768 P.2d 1235 (Colo. 1989) (defines affirmative defenses as admissions of conduct justified or excused by law)
- People v. Fink, 574 P.2d 81 (Colo. 1978) (observes that recklessness is inconsistent with self-defense)