Opinion ID: 2599573
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Right To Be

Text: Having analyzed Colorado's self-defense doctrine and demonstrated that this state imposes a duty to retreat only on initial aggressors, we turn to the People's argument that a trespasser must retreat to the wall before using physical force in self-defense. The People argue that Instruction No. 14 properly informed the jury that because Toler was not where he had a right to be when he shot Martinez, the affirmative defense of self-defense was unavailable to Toler. We disagree. Although both our caselaw and CJI-Crim. 7:68-7(15) have approved language similar to the right to be language, we have never held that a person must retreat to the wall before using force in self-defense if the person is where he has no right to be. Such a conclusion is required neither by section 18-1-704 nor by our precedent, and would contravene the right of some trespassers to defend themselves against unlawful physical force. Many jurisdictions that adhere to the true man doctrine incorporate the notion of the right to be as an element of the privilege. In Beard, for instance, the United States Supreme Court concluded, partly based upon the defendant's right to be in the place where he used deadly force, that the defendant's conduct was justified when he shot one of three boys who attempted to take possession of one of the defendant's cows: The accused being where he had a right to be, on his own premises . . . at the time the deceased approached him in a threatening manner, and not having by language or conduct provoked the deceased to assault him, the question for the jury was whether, without fleeing from his adversary, he had, at the moment he struck the deceased, reasonable grounds to believe, and in good faith believed, that he could not save his life or protect himself from great bodily harm except by [killing the deceased]. 158 U.S. at 160 (emphasis added). Other courts have likewise explained the justification for the use of physical force in self-defense in terms of the defendant's right to be in the place where he defended himself. See, e.g., Renner, 912 S.W.2d at 704. Similarly, we have described the justification for using physical force in self-defense in terms of the defendant being where he had a right to be. In Boykin, we held that an officer who shot a man while trying to arrest him was justified and did not have to retreat before using force in self-defense, and we noted that the officer was where he has a right to be. See 22 Colo. at 504, 45 P. at 422. In Enyart, we held that because the jury could have believed that the defendant was attending to his own business, in his own bank and had not otherwise provoked the deceased's use of force, an instruction that could have led the jury to conclude that the defendant could have used a lesser degree of force by retreating was erroneous. See 67 Colo. at 439-440, 180 P. at 724. [12] Although in Boykin and similar cases we approved of the use of right to be language in jury instructions about self-defense, the defendant's status as a trespasser has not been a central element in our decisions. For example, in Boykin, the defendant's right to be where he was turned on his status as a police officer making a lawful arrest, not on whether the defendant was trespassing. See 22 Colo. at 504, 45 P. at 422. Additionally, in other cases we have discussed an innocent victim's privilege to use physical force in self-defense without directly referring to the person's status as a trespasser or right to be in a particular place. See Idrogo, 818 P.2d at 756; Willner, 879 P.2d at 22, 24. Furthermore, in Willner we approved of a jury instruction about the use of deadly force in self-defense that contained no reference to the defendant's right to be where he was. See 879 P.2d at 23-25. Thus, although we have approved of the right to be language in some cases discussing the use of force in self-defense, we have never held that a trespasser must retreat to the wall before using force in self-defense or that a person must be where he has a right to be before using such force. Like our caselaw, which contains no requirement that trespassers retreat to the wall before using defensive physical force, section 18-1-704 contains no reference to a person's right to be in the place where he uses defensive physical force. Our analysis of section 18-1-704, supra Part III.B, demonstrates that the statute describes the privilege to use physical force in terms of four categories of people: those who with intent to cause bodily harm provoke the use of force against themselves, participants in unauthorized mutual combat, initial aggressors, and all others. Of these categories, only initial aggressors have a duty to retreat before using physical force to defend themselves. See 18-1-704(3)(b). The statute contains no references to trespassers or any other indication that a person who is not where he has a right to be must retreat before using physical force in self-defense. Thus, requiring trespassers to retreat before using defensive physical force would extend the duty beyond the only class of persons identified by section 18-1-704 as subject to the duty to retreat. Just as none of our cases requires that a trespasser retreat to the wall before using physical force in self-defense, CJI-Crim. 7:68-7(15) stands only for the proposition that a non-aggressor has no duty to retreat and is not designed to instruct the jury that a trespasser has a duty to retreat. In Idrogo, we held that under the facts of that case the jury should have been instructed that a non-aggressor has no duty to retreat, even if the non-aggressor could have safely done so. See 818 P.2d at 756. We recognized that Colorado law imposes the duty to retreat only in the specific circumstances described in section 18-1-704(3) (i.e., initial aggressors), and we refused to extend that duty: Section 18-1-704(2) contains no language restricting the circumstances in which a non-aggressor may use physical force, including deadly physical force, when such a person believes, on reasonable grounds, that such conduct is necessary to avoid great bodily harm. Id. at 756. Thus, in Idrogo we recognized and reaffirmed the fundamental distinction that exists in the self-defense statute: non-aggressors have no duty to retreat and initial aggressors must retreat before using force in self-defense. Because the jury could have determined that the defendant in Idrogo was not the initial aggressor, they should have been informed that if the defendant was not the initial aggressor, then he had no duty to retreat. See id. Without the proper instruction, the jury might have concluded that even as the non-aggressor the defendant could have retreated and that the defendant's use of force was unreasonable in light of the possibility of retreat: [The instruction given to the jury] does not inform the jury, directly or indirectly, that if Idrogo were not the initial aggressor he need not retreat at all to be entitled to use deadly force if he believed such force to be necessary in light of [the deceased's] conduct and the belief was based on reasonable grounds. Because the jury could reasonably have concluded on the basis of the instructions given at trial that Idrogo's failure to retreat was evidence that a lesser degree of force would have been adequate, an instruction explaining that Idrogo had no duty to retreat would not . . . have been redundant. Id. at 756. We concluded that the jury should have been given an instruction similar to the language of CJI-Crim. 7:68-7(15) to ensure that the jury does not consider the possibility of retreat as a limitation on a non-aggressor's claim of self-defense. A person who is not where he has a right to be in many instances retains the privilege to use force in self-defense irrespective of his status as a trespasser. For example, if the initial aggressor in an assault withdraws and communicates his intention to withdraw to the victim of the assault, the aggressor may defend himself. See § 18-1-704(3)(b). In such a circumstance, nothing in the statute suggests that the initial aggressor's ability to defend himself turns on whether he is where he has a right to beit is solely an issue of whether the initial aggressor withdraws and communicates as required by the statute. See id. Similar reasoning would apply in the case of a victim of an attempted robbery who flees onto a third person's property before resorting to physical force against the would-be robber. Nothing in the statute suggests that a robbery victim forfeits the privilege to defend himself simply by the act of trespassing onto the property of a third person. In addition to instances in which a person trespasses while fleeing from an attack, other scenarios suggest that trespassers do not forfeit their rights to self-defense merely by the act of trespassing. For instance, if the owner or occupant of property confronts a trespasser with unlawful force (e.g., by using deadly force without reasonable grounds to believe that the trespasser committed or intends to commit a felony in addition to the trespass), then the trespasser retains the right to defend himself without having to retreat to the wall. See State v. Perigo, 70 Iowa 657, 28 N.W. 452, 457 (1886); People v. Townes, 391 Mich. 578, 218 N.W.2d 136, 141-142 (1974). In the situations we have suggested, as well as others we have not addressed or considered, a trespasser would not be required to retreat to the wall before using physical force in self-defense. Because neither our statutes nor our caselaw requires us to conclude that a trespasser must in every instance retreat to a position of no escape before using physical force in self-defense, we cannot agree with the position urged by the People. Although our conclusion is that neither section 18-1-704 nor our cases require that a trespasser must retreat to the wall before using force in self-defense, a trespasser is not necessarily in the same position as an innocent person or true man in terms of employing defensive physical force. In addition to the justifiable use of physical force pursuant to section 18-1-704, a person in possession or control of any building or premises may lawfully use reasonable force, including deadly force in some instances, against trespassers. See § 18-1-705, 6 C.R.S. (1999). [13] Furthermore, the occupant of a dwelling may lawfully use physical force, including deadly force, against trespassers in certain situations. See § 18-1-704.5, 6 C.R.S. (1999). [14] Under these statutes, a trespasser who is subjected to lawful physical force by the owner or occupant of property or premises has no privilege to use physical force in self-defense because the privilege under section 18-1-704 applies only when the defendant faces unlawful force. Thus, because trespassers face the possibility of lawful physical force by a person defending against the trespass, they are not in the same position as an otherwise innocent person or true man with respect to the privilege of using force in self-defense.