Court Opinion

ID: 9792460
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:29:45.50141+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:43.009141
License: Public Domain

*79Justice KIRSHBAUM
dissenting.
The majority concludes that the trial court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury that the defendant, Beckett, was entitled to act on “apparent necessity.” I disagree. Because I also conclude that the Court of Appeals erred in concluding that Beckett was not entitled to a self-defense instruction with regard to the possession of a firearm charge, I would reverse the Court of Appeals decision.
A
A defendant in a criminal prosecution is entitled to instructions accurately setting forth the theory of the case from the defendant’s point of view when the evidence so warrants. People v. Tippett, 733 P.2d 1183 (Colo.1987); Young v. People, 47 Colo. 352, 107 P. 274 (1910). The recitation of facts contained in the majority opinion establishes that the evidence adduced at trial was sufficient to justify an instruction that Beckett was entitled to act on the apparent but mistaken belief that force was necessary to protect himself from death or serious bodily injury. Neither the majority nor the People suggest that Beckett’s tendered apparent necessity instruction contained an erroneous statement of the law. Under these circumstances, Beckett’s instruction should have been rejected only if some other instruction given by the trial court clearly and adequately communicated the defendant’s position to the jury.1 No such instruction was given at trial here.
The Court of Appeals concluded the trial court’s self-defense instruction adequately informed the jury of the defendant’s reliance on the concept of apparent necessity. The trial court’s only instruction addressing that issue stated as follows:
INSTRUCTION NO. 14
It is an affirmative defense to the crime of felony menacing that the defendant threatened force upon another person:
1. in order to defend himself from what he reasonably believed to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by [the victim]; and
2. he threatened to use a degree of force which he reasonably believed to be necessary for that purpose.
This instruction basically recites section 18-1-704, 8B C.R.S. (1986), which defines self-defense as follows:
Use of physical force in defense of a person. (1) Except as provided in subsections (2) and (3) of this section, a person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he may use a degree of force which he reasonably believes to be necessary for that purpose.
(2) Deadly physical force may be used only if a person reasonably believes a lesser degree of force is inadequate and:
(a) The actor has reasonable ground to believe, and does believe, that he or another person is in imminent danger of being killed or of receiving great bodily injury....
This statutory language encompasses the concept of apparent necessity, as the majority recognizes. Maj. op. at 77-78. It by no means, however, abrogates a defendant’s right in appropriate cases to have the jury expressly and particularly apprised of this concept, as the majority concludes.
The doctrine of apparent necessity has long been embedded in the constitutional, statutory and common-law jurisprudence of this state. See People v. Jones, 675 P.2d 9, 14 (Colo.1984). As early as 1861, a person’s right to act upon appearances in certain circumstances was legislatively established in the territory of Colorado. § 30, *801861 Colo.Terr.Sess.Laws 294.2 In Young v. People, 47 Colo. 352, 107 P. 274 (1910), this court reversed a second degree murder conviction because the trial court failed to fully and adequately instruct the jury on the defendant’s apparent necessity theory of self-defense. In Young, the trial court, after reciting the then statutory definition of justifiable homicide, instructed the jury as follows:
A bare fear of any of [certain] offenses, to prevent which the homicide is alleged to have been committed, shall not be sufficient to justify the killing. It must appear that the circumstances were sufficient to excite the fears of a reasonable person, and that the party killing really acted under the influence of those fears, and not in a spirit of revenge.
The jury are further instructed that the right of self-defense is only given in emergencies3 to enable persons who are attacked and to whom it may reasonably appear, that their lives or bodies are 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 the defendant in this case must be measured by this rule....
The jury are instructed that one who seeks and brings about a difficulty cannot shield himself under the plea of self-defense from the consequences of assaulting his adversary, however imminent the danger he brings upon himself. Self-defense is not available where defendant is not reasonably freed [sic] from fault, nor unless there is evidence tending to show that he either was or appeared to be menaced at the time by some overt act on the part of the assailant of a character to create reasonable apprehension of danger of his life or of great bodily harm.
Young v. People, 47 Colo. at 353-54, 107 P. at 275-76. In determining that these instructions were wholly inadequate in view of the disputed evidence adduced at trial, this court made the following telling observations:
The first instruction is the statutory definition of justifiable homicide, and the other two are mere negative instructions, given on behalf of the people, specifically pointing out certain conditions, circumstances and situations, under which the defendant may not avail himself of that defense. They do not purport to state the law of this subject in extenso, or with any degree of fullness. They were entirely proper for the purpose intended, but under the conflicting testimony, touching the facts immediately surrounding the homicide itself, the defendant had a constitutional right to have a lucid, accurate and comprehensive statement by the court to the jury of the law on the subject of self-defense from his standpoint, upon the supposition that the jury might believe, and accept as true, his testimony, and that of his witnesses, explanatory of the encounter which resulted in the death of [the victim].
It is fundamental that the law of self-defense, which is emphatically a law of necessity, involves the question of one’s right to act upon appearances, even though such appearances may prove to have been deceptive; also the question of whether the danger is actual or only apparent, and as well the fact that actual danger is not necessary, in order to justify one in acting in self-defense. Apparent necessity, if well grounded and of such a character as to appeal to a reasonable person, under like conditions and circumstances, as being sufficient to require action, justifies the application of the doctrine of self-defense to the same extent as actual or real necessity. The *81court’s instructions upon these vital and essential points of the law of self-defense are strikingly silent. When a person has reasonable grounds for believing, and does in fact actually believe, that danger of his being killed, or of receiving great bodily harm, is imminent, he may act on such appearances and defend himself, even to the extent of taking human life when necessary, although it may turn out that the appearances were false, or although he may have been mistaken as to the extent of the real or actual danger. It is for the jury to say, under all of the testimony and under proper instructions from the court upon the subject, whether appearances of danger were real or apparently real, so as to justify action in self-defense. A person charged with homicide and defending upon the ground of self-defense is entitled, upon request, to have the jury instructed, when there is conflicting testimony upon the subject, as to the law of self-defense, upon the evidence of apparent danger and apparent necessity to kill, as well as upon real danger and actual necessity, and in every aspect of the testimony.
Young v. People, 47 Colo. at 355-56, 107 P. at 275-76 (citations omitted).
This clear and eloquent description of the relationship between the constitutional right to trial by jury and a defendant’s right to be certain that, in proper cases, the jury is instructed with regard to the doctrine of apparent necessity as well as on the reasonable person standard applicable to the defense of self-defense has consistently been approved and followed by this court and has never been altered by the General Assembly in its various redefinitions and recodifications of the right to self-defense. People v. Jones, 675 P.2d 9 (Colo.1984); People v. Tapia, 183 Colo. 141, 515 P.2d 453 (1973); Maes v. People, 166 Colo. 15, 441 P.2d 1 (1968); People v. La Voie, 155 Colo. 551, 395 P.2d 1001 (1964).4 In Young itself we reversed the trial court’s refusal to give an apparent necessity instruction. While noting that the trial court was not bound to give the precise instructions tendered by the defendant, we emphasized the trial court’s own responsibility to instruct the jury “on the subject of self-defense from [the defendant’s] standpoint” when put on notice that the evidence warranted such an instruction. Young v. People, 47 Colo. at 355, 107 P. at 275.
In Jones, we expressly noted with approval much of the above-quoted language from Young in holding that section 18-1-704(1), 8 C.R.S. (1978), “reflects what has long been the settled law of this jurisdiction, namely, reasonable belief rather than absolute certainty is the touchstone of self-defense.” People v. Jones, 675 P.2d at 13. In that case this court reversed the defendant’s second degree assault conviction because the trial court failed to instruct the jury that the defendant was entitled to act upon the basis of appearances. We also emphasized the trial court’s responsibility to give such an instruction even if the defendant’s tendered instructions were less than satisfactory.
The majority concludes that in adopting section 40-1-804 in 1971, the General Assembly somehow altered the settled jurisprudence of this state with respect to a defendant’s right to have the jury instructed regarding the ability of a person to act in self-defense on the basis of apparent necessity in appropriate cases. Yet the majority correctly observes that that statute and its successor, section 18-1-704, do not eliminate “an individual’s right to use self-defense based on ‘apparent necessity.’ ”5 Maj. op. at 78. I agree that the *821971 codification rendered no change in the law of self-defense based upon apparent necessity as articulated in prior statutes and continuously recognized by decisions of this court to that point in time.
A person’s right to act on “reasonable appearances” is a sufficiently specific example of the reasonable person concept embodied in the statutory definition of self-defense to require that, when the evidence so warrants, a defendant in a criminal case is entitled to have the jury instructed on that particular theory. As our case law has explained, it is far from clear that the reasonable person standard articulated by statutory definitions of self-defense clearly informs the jury that a person is entitled to act upon appearances even if the appearances are subsequently proven to be contrary to what the defendant reasonably believed.6
The defendant’s tendered instruction here accurately stated the law of this jurisdiction, and the evidence supported that instruction. The trial court’s instruction misled the jury and did not contain an adequate description of the defendant’s theory of the case. Under these circumstances, the verdict must be set aside and the defendant must be granted a new trial.
B
In a footnote the majority states that it need not reach a second error assigned by the defendant, namely, that the Court of Appeals erred in concluding that self-defense is not an affirmative defense to the offense of prohibited use of weapons as defined by section 18-12-106(l)(d), 8B C.R.S. (1986). Maj. op. at 75. At oral argument the defendant did concede that if this court found the trial court’s self-defense instruction to be adequate, any error in failing to instruct the jury on self-defense with regard to the possession of weapons count would be harmless. Because I find the trial court’s self-defense instruction inadequate, I address the second issue.
Section 18-12-106 provides, in pertinent part: “(1) A person commits a class 2 misdemeanor if ... (d) [h]e has in his possession a firearm while he is under the influence of intoxicating liquor or of a controlled substance_” § 18-12-106(l)(d). The Court of Appeals held that “since it is the possession of the firearm while ‘under the influence’ that constitutes the crime, the use, if any, of the firearm cannot constitute a defense to the illegal possession.” People v. Beckett, 782 P.2d 812, 813 (Colo.App.1989).
Our previous decisions have established that “ ‘possession,’ as it is used in this statute, is the actual or physical control of the firearm.” People v. Garcia, 197 Colo. 550, 554, 595 P.2d 228, 231 (1979); accord People v. Martinez, 780 P.2d 560 (Colo.1989) (construing § 18-12-108, the possession of a weapon by a felon statute); People v. Rivera, 765 P.2d 624 (Colo.App.1988), rev’d on other grounds, 792 P.2d 786 (Colo.1990). The determination of whether a firearm is within one’s actual or physical control is a question of fact for the jury. People v. Rivera, 765 P.2d 624 at 628. Under this definition of possession, the jury could have found that Beckett did not *83violate the statute until he took control of the weapon and Beckett introduced evidence to support his contention that he took control of the weapon only when he reasonably believed it was necessary to do so for purposes of self-defense.
Beckett contends that denial of the defense of self-defense to a charge of prohibited use of weapons would constitute a violation of the guarantee of the right to bear arms contained in the Colorado and United States Constitutions. U.S. Const. amend. II; Colo. Const. art. II, § 13. We have recognized that the right to bear arms is not absolute, and can be restricted by the state in the exercise of its police power. Garcia, 197 Colo. at 552, 595 P.2d at 230. However, we have also recognized that the state “cannot, in the name of the police power, enact laws which render nugatory our Bill of Rights and other constitutional protections.” People v. Blue, 190 Colo. 95, 103, 544 P.2d 385, 391 (1975). In Blue, we examined the viability of the defense of self-defense to the charge of possession of a weapon by a felon under the predecessor of section 18-12-108, 8B C.R.S. (1986). Under that statute, as under the statute here at issue, the gravamen of the offense is the possession of a firearm while under a legal disability.
In Blue, we held that, in view of the constitutional right to bear arms, § 18-12-106 “does not abrogate an ex-felon’s right to legitimately use self-defense.” Id., at 103, 544 P.2d at 391. In People v. Ford, 193 Colo. 459, 568 P.2d 26 (1977), we again emphasized that statutes enacted pursuant to the police power of the state may not restrict or regulate the right to possess arms where the purpose of such possession is a constitutionally protected one. Id., at 462, 568 P.2d at 28. We held in that ease that a defendant charged with possession of a weapon by a previous offender “who presents competent evidence showing that his purpose in possessing weapons was the defense of his home, person, and property thereby raises an affirmative defense.” Id. I find no constitutionally meaningful distinction between the power of the state to regulate the possession of a weapon by a felon and the power of the state to regulate the possession of a weapon by one who is intoxicated.
The state argues that self-defense cannot be a defense to possession of a weapon by one who is intoxicated because intoxication negates the reasonableness requirement of the use of self-defense. However, an intoxicated person may act reasonably in self-defense under particular circumstances. It is the role of the jury to determine the extent and effect of a defendant’s intoxication and whether a particular defendant’s actions satisfied the objective reasonable person test of the self-defense statute.
For the foregoing reasons, I conclude that the defense of self-defense is available to a person charged with possession of a weapon by a person who is intoxicated and that the contrary decision of the Court of Appeals must be reversed.
I am authorized to state that ERICKSON and QUINN, JJ., join in this dissent.

. At one point the majority characterizes the defendant’s position as asserting that an apparent necessity instruction is "required in self-defense cases.” Maj. op. at 76. I do not read the defendant’s argument to assert such an inflexible position. Rather, I read the defendant’s argument at trial, before the Court of Appeals, and here to be simply that he was entitled to have the jury informed of the apparent necessity doctrine specifically and expressly, based on the evidence adduced at trial.

. Section 30 states as follows:
If any person kill another in self defense, it must appear that the danger was so urgent and pressing, that in order to save his own life, or to prevent his receiving great bodily harm, the killing of the other was absolutely necessary....
§ 30, 1861 Colo.Terr.Sess.Laws 294.

. The majority correctly notes that the limitation as to emergencies was disapproved in Vigil v. People, 143 Colo. 328, 333-34, 353 P.2d 82, 85 (1960).

. The majority suggests in a footnote that portions of the Court of Appeals decisions of People v. Duran, 40 Colo.App. 302, 577 P.2d 307, cert. denied (1978), and People v. Berry, 703 P.2d 613 (Colo.App.), cert. denied (1985), should be overruled. Those cases, in my view, properly applied the law to the particular facts therein and need not be questioned.

. The majority states that the version of the self-defense statute involved in this case is virtually identical with the 1971 statute. For purposes of this decision, I agree with that characterization. It must also be noted, however, that pertinent legislative definitions of "self-defense” adopted prior to 1971 by the General Assembly were also substantially similar to like provisions contained in the Criminal Code of 1971. *82As all of these provisions have incorporated the objective test of reasonableness as the touchstone for permissible acts of self-defense, we have consistently recognized that the ultimate test of self-defense is the objective test of what a reasonable person under like circumstances would do at a particular moment. What the majority fails to account for is the continuing viability of the fact that in appropriate cases a jury must be informed that among the circumstances a reasonable person may take into account is the appearance of danger, even if it subsequently develops that the appearance was merely an illusion.

. While of no binding authority on this court, it is interesting to note that a comment to § 40-1-804 of the 1971 Colorado Criminal Code as it was first published contained the following language:
This section, in part, is taken from Michigan proposal § 615. Subsection (2) omits the doctrine of "retreat to the wall” which has never been the law in Colorado since Young v. People, 47 Colo. 352 [107 P. 274]. It gives statutory recognition to the Colorado rule announced in People v. La Voie, 155 Colo. 551 [395 P.2d 1001].
People v. La Voie expressly adopted the apparent necessity formulation described in Young v. People.