Law Case Questions

1. The decision does not invalidate the statute. The decision that the appellate court made here is limited to this jury instruction. The statute could still be used in other cases where self defense is not present but because self defense could have been reasonably proven in this case, the statute does not apply.

2. The court of appeals appears to be following Colorado law. When I researched the subject I found that Colorado has stand your ground laws. This means that you are able to use force, up to and including deadly force, to protect yourself and others when you believe that you or others are being threatened with an imminent use of force. This comes from Colorado Statute 18-1-704. The exact text of this statute reads:

“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 of 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 (Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1-704). ”

3. The jury should weigh heavily the accused evidence of self defense. If there are third party witnesses who will back of the claim of self defense then it seems to be legitimate. Based on the appellate court decision the prosecution must disprove the claim of self defense in this case.

4. It is relevant that the case involved first degree murder and not manslaughter based on the legal meaning of each of these terms. The difference between murder and manslaughter is that murder involves previous planning and intent, while manslaughter is committed after a person has been provoked enough to lose self control or is committed involuntarily. The outcome could have been much different if the case involved manslaughter because there would have been no evidence of previous planning or intent, which would make the self defense...