Court Opinion

ID: 5164839
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-02 03:23:34.456844+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:57:04.369927
License: Public Domain

[1] Defendant, Paul L. Cushinberry, appeals the judgment of conviction entered upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of second degree murder. We affirm.
[2] Defendant's sole contention on appeal is that the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on the affirmative defense set out in § 18-1-704.5, C.R.S. (1986 Repl. Vol. 8B), the "make-my-day" statute. We find no error.
[3] There must be evidence in the record to support an instruction embodying a defendant's theory of the case. See People v. Dillon,655 P.2d 841 (Colo. 1982). Thus, for defendant to be entitled to an instruction on the affirmative defense defined in § 18-1-704.5, he was required to present some credible evidence that (1) another person made an unlawful entry into the defendant's dwelling; (2) the defendant had a reasonable belief that such other person had committed a crime in the dwelling in addition to the uninvited entry, or was committing or intended to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the uninvited entry; (3) the defendant reasonably believed that such other person might use physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant of the dwelling; and (4) the defendant used force against the person who actually made the unlawful entry into the dwelling. People v.Guenther, 740 P.2d 971 (Colo. 1987). *Page 19 
[4] The trial court concluded the evidence did not support giving an instruction on the "make-my-day" affirmative defense. We agree.
[5] The defendant was sitting on a window sill in a stairwell landing in his apartment building when the victim confronted him demanding money. An altercation ensued during which the defendant shot the decedent.
[6] "Dwelling" is defined as a building which is used, intended to be used, or usually used by a person for habitation. Section 18-1-901(3)(g), C.R.S. (1986 Repl. Vol. 8B). The stairwell was not part of the defendant's apartment, but was a common area used by other tenants and their guests. We conclude that, for purposes of the "make-my-day" statute, the common areas of an apartment building do not constitute a dwelling. See People v. Marshall, 196 Colo. 381, 586 P.2d 41 (1976); §§18-4-502 and 18-4-503, C.R.S. (1986 Repl. Vol. 8B); cf. People inInterest of D.G.P., 194 Colo. 238, 570 P.2d 1293 (Colo. 1977). The court therefore did not err in rejecting defendant's tendered instruction.
[7] Judgment affirmed.
[8] JUDGE NEY and JUDGE DAVIDSON concur.