People

Jury Instructions—Self-Defense—Burden of Proof—Testimonial Evidence—Jury Deliberations—Abuse of Discretion—Harmless Error. Ray petitioned for review of the Court of Appeals' judgment affirming his convictions for attempted first degree murder, first degree assault, and accessory to first degree murder. The Supreme Court held that the district court did not err in instructing the jury regarding defendant's assertion that he acted in defense of himself and a third person because (1) the language of a self-defense-related instruction did not permit the jury to reconsider the court's determination, based on the evidence at trial, that the affirmative defense of person was available to defendant and (2) the jury was properly instructed concerning the People's burden to disprove that, and any, affirmative defense. Although error resulted from the district court's reliance on later-overruled case law permitting the jury to have unrestricted access to a witness recorded interview admitted as an exhibit at trial, when comparing the content of that exhibit with the other evidence admitted at trial, the error was harmless. The Court of Appeals' judgment was affirmed.

In this case, the Supreme Court reviewed the district court's order affirming petitioner's county court conviction for harassment. Petitioner asserted that pursuant to People v. Pickering, 276 P.3d 553 (Colo. 2011), self-defense is an affirmative defense to all crimes requiring intent, knowledge, or willfulness. She thus contended that (1) she was entitled to a self-defense affirmative defense instruction to the specific intent crime of harassment, and (2) the county court's refusal to give such an instruction constituted reversible error. Because Pickering does not establish the broad, bright-line rule that petitioner asserts and thus does not require a trial court to give a self-defense affirmative defense instruction in every case requiring intent, knowledge, or willfulness, the Court affirmed the district court's judgment.