Source: https://lawofselfdefense.com/law_case/enyart-v-people-180-p-722-co-supreme-court-1919/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 16:03:53+00:00

Document:
Supreme Court of Colorado, Department One.
Messrs. SABIN, HASKINS & SABIN and Mr. HORACE N. HAWKINS, for plaintiff in error.
Hon. VICTOR E. KEYES, attorney general, and Mr. WILLIAM RAMSEY, assistant, for the peo-ple.
JUDGES: Before Mr. Justice Burke. Garrigues, C.J., and Teller, J., concur.
SEPTEMBER 17, 1917, an information was filed against plaintiff in error (hereinafter designated as the defendant), charging him with the murder of one J. W. Black, on February 25, 1917. The trial began November 13, 1917, and on November 18 following the jury returned a verdict finding the defendant guilty of voluntary manslaughter. A motion for a new trial was filed and overruled, and April 20, 1918, defendant was sentenced to the penitentiary for a term of not less than five nor more than eight years. From that judgment he brings error.
“It was the duty of the court to tell the jury by what principles of law they should be guided, in the event they found the facts to be as stated by the accused.” Baird v. U.S., 158 U.S. 550.
“The court further instructs the jury that the right of self-defense is based upon the law of necessity, and is only given in emergencies to persons who are attacked and who do not bring on the difficulty themselves which results in the homicide, and to whom it may reasonably appear that their lives are placed in jeopardy or their persons in danger of great bodily injury, to defend themselves; that this right is based upon what reasonable persons, having due regard for human life, would do under similar circumstances, and the actions of defendant in this case must be measured by this rule.
Assuming that the jury believed defendant’s testimony, and believed further, as they might from the evidence, that at the time he secured the revolver he could have escaped with less danger to himself than he incurred by continuing the conflict, or that a reasonable man so situated might have so believed, they were still, under these instructions, obliged to find him guilty. Such is the ancient doctrine of “retreat to the wall,” but it has long since been abandoned in the Federal and most of the state courts. Erwin v. State, 29 Ohio St. 186, 23 Am. Rep. 733; Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80, 26 Am. Rep. 52; Beard v. United States, 158 U.S. 550; State v. Carter, 15 Wash. 121, 45 Pac. 745.
“It was error to charge the jury * * * to the effect that, to justify homicide on the plea of self-defense, it must appear that the slayer had no possible, or at least probable, means of escape, etc.” Babcock v. People, 13 Colo. 515-524, 22 Pac. 817.
“As to this doctrine of retreat, it may, in general, be safely said that the tendency of the modern cases is greatly to qualify the common law rule. * * * But when a defendant is where he has a right to be * * * and is assaulted by the deceased in a way that defendant honestly and in good faith believes, and the circumstances being such as would induce a like belief in a reasonable man, that he is about to receive at the hands of his assailant great bodily harm, or to lose his life, the defendant, if he did not provoke the assault, * * * is not obliged to retreat or flee to save his life, but may stand his ground, and even, in some circumstances, pursue his assailant until the latter has been disarmed or disabled from carrying into effect his unlawful purpose; and this right of the defendant goes even to the extent, if necessary, of taking human life.” Boykin v. People, 22 Colo. 496-504, 45 Pac. 419.
“But where, as here, * * * the jury are instructed that the defendant, in every case, must retreat to the wall before he is entitled to resort to self-defense, the error is manifest.” Ritchey v. People, 23 Colo. 314-321, 47 Pac. 272.
“The common law doctrine of retreat to the wall, as this court has said, * * * has been modified by the more recent decisions and is applicable in this jurisdiction only to such cases as where the defendant voluntarily enters into a fight or where the parties engage in mutual combat, or where the defendant, being the assailant, does not endeavor in good faith to decline any further struggle before firing the fatal shot, and possibly to other similar cases.” Harris v. People, 32 Colo. 211-218, 75 Pac. 427.
This jury was told, in substance, that although they might believe that defendant was attending to his own business, in his own bank, though he were in no way the aggressor, though he were subjected to a deadly and unprovoked assault, by one armed with a loaded pistol, and bent upon taking his life, he was obliged to flee, unless it appeared to him, and would have appeared to a reasonable person so situated, that it was more dangerous to run than fight. This is exactly the pernicious application of the common law doctrine of “retreat to the wall” which has been abrogated by the authorities above cited. We can not sanction a conviction in which this erroneous principle may have played a conspicuous part. True it is that the statute hereinbefore quoted as being given this jury as a part of the court’s instruction No. 18, is of itself somewhat confusing. It states the law of self-defense, but it does not state the whole law. The confusion arises from the assumption that it does. It must be read in connection with, and in the light of, this court’s repeated declarations on that subject.
Instructions 18 and 19 were duly excepted to and reasons therefor assigned. Some question is raised as to the exception to No. 20. The defendant requested two instructions, giving to the jury the law of self-defense under his theory of the evidence, to the effect that one attacked as he says he was is not obliged to retreat, or act upon any theory or belief as to whether the greater danger lies in flight or conflict, but may stand his ground and repel force with force. Some question is raised also as to the tender of these instructions, and as to whether defendant was entitled to an exception to the court’s failure to give them. They were both marked “Covered. Refused.” The question as to defendant’s right to an exception to the court’s refusal to give these two instructions, and his right to an exception to the giving of No. 20, need not be decided, as we are of the opinion that the instructions given, the objections and exceptions thereto, and the reasons assigned therefore, sufficiently present the question herein decided.
1. The failure of the people to call the witness Potter. Under the circumstances of this case the calling of this witness was a matter solely within the discretion of the district attorney.
As the same state of facts could not possibly justify a verdict of guilty of voluntary manslaughter and a finding of not guilty on the ground of self-defense, this portion of the instruction is necessarily erroneous.
3. The insufficiency of the evidence. We are of the opinion that it justified a submission of this case to the jury.
As it is not probable that the questions presented by other assignments of error will arise upon another trial, they will not now be examined.
For the reasons hereinbefore stated the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.
Garrigues, C.J., and Teller, J., concur.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.