Court Opinion

ID: 9584766
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:52:28.638439+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:15:27.020354
License: Public Domain

Justice SCOTT,
concurring.
I join in the judgment rendered by the majority. I agree with the majority that “the burden of proof is, as it always is, on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the crime charged [and, as a consequence] requires the People to disprove the affirmative defense beyond a reasonable doubt.” Maj. op. at 303.1 also agree “that the jury instructions, when read as a whole, confused or misled the jury as to the burden of proof applicable to the affirmative defense of ‘make-my-day.’ ” Id. at 304.1
I write separately, however, to make clear my view that our judgment today regarding the “make-my-day” affirmative defense provided by section 18-1-407, 6B C.R.S. (1998), neither reaches the issues addressed nor reaffirms the judgment rendered in People v. McNeese, 892 P.2d 304 (Colo.1995). I, for one, would welcome the opportunity to revisit the definition of “unlawful entry” and the statutory grant of immunity created under that same statute. However, such an occasion is beyond the scope of our grant of certiorari in this case.
*306Accordingly, I join in the judgment and opinion of the majority.

. The statute was entitled "The Home Protection Bill." The name "make-my-day” is a nickname that emerged during the course of the bill’s enactment into law. The statute may not wholly reflect the expressed purposes of the General Assembly. See People v. McNeese, 892 P.2d 304, 317 n. 1 (Scott, J. dissenting). Nonetheless, because the majority uses that label in its opinion, I do so as well.