Castillo v. People
2018 CO 62, 421 P.3d 1141 (2018)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A jury instruction on an exception to self-defense, such as the initial aggressor doctrine, is improper and constitutes reversible error if it is not supported by any evidence in the record. An initial aggressor is the person who initiated the physical conflict by using or threatening the imminent use of unlawful physical force, which requires more than just insults or preparatory actions.
Facts:
- Andres Castillo, his wife, and friends were leaving a nightclub in downtown Denver after celebrating his wife's birthday.
- As Castillo was backing his car out of a parking spot, an unidentified man said something to him through the open car window, and Castillo said something in return.
- Shortly thereafter, while Castillo was driving slowly to exit the lot, an unknown assailant began firing a gun at his car.
- In response, Castillo stopped his car, popped the trunk, retrieved a shotgun, and fired several rounds toward the area where the initial shots originated.
- Police Sergeant Lombardi and Officer Simmons, who were in uniform, heard the shots and moved toward Castillo's position.
- Sergeant Lombardi saw Castillo aiming the shotgun toward the initial shooter's location and, fearing Castillo was trying to kill someone, fired at Castillo.
- After being fired upon by Sergeant Lombardi, Castillo turned and fired his shotgun in the officers' direction.
- Castillo later testified that he did not realize the men were police officers and believed they were associated with the initial shooter.
Procedural Posture:
- The prosecution charged Andres Castillo in a Colorado trial court with multiple counts, including attempted first degree murder and first and second degree assault.
- At trial, Castillo raised an affirmative defense of self-defense.
- Over Castillo's objection, the trial court instructed the jury on the 'initial aggressor' and 'provocation' exceptions to self-defense.
- The jury convicted Castillo of two counts of attempted second degree murder and one count of second degree assault.
- The trial court sentenced Castillo to a total of thirty-three years in prison.
- Castillo (appellant) appealed his conviction to the Colorado Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, finding no error in the initial aggressor instruction and holding that any error in the provocation instruction was harmless.
- The Colorado Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the Court of Appeals' decision regarding the jury instructions.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does giving a jury instruction on the 'initial aggressor' exception to a claim of self-defense constitute reversible error when there is no evidence in the record to support a finding that the defendant initiated the physical conflict by using or threatening the imminent use of unlawful physical force?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Hood
Yes, giving the jury instruction on the 'initial aggressor' exception was reversible error. An initial aggressor is defined as the person who initiated the physical conflict by using or threatening the imminent use of unlawful physical force. Here, there was no evidence that Castillo was the initial aggressor; an unknown person first fired upon his car. Castillo's preceding actions—cursing at a man and popping his trunk—did not constitute a threat of imminent unlawful physical force. The entire event was a single, continuous episode, meaning Castillo's actions were a response to an ongoing attack, not the initiation of a new one. The trial court's error in giving the unsupported instruction was not harmless because it could have misled the jury, and the error was exacerbated by the prosecution's extensive reliance on the initial aggressor theory during its closing argument, which substantially influenced the verdict and affected the fairness of the trial.
Dissenting - Justice Coats
No, the trial court did not commit reversible error by fully instructing the jury on the law of self-defense. In a chaotic, multi-party conflict, the jury should be permitted to decide the factual questions of who was the aggressor. The majority errs by analyzing the entire melee as a single 'episode.' The pertinent question is not who started the fight with the unidentified shooter, but whether Castillo was the initial aggressor with respect to the police officers he shot at. A reasonable jury could have found that Castillo initiated a new aggression against the officers, especially since one officer testified he was grazed by Castillo's shot before returning fire. By restricting the jury's access to the complete legal framework, the majority usurps the jury's fact-finding role.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the definition of an 'initial aggressor' in Colorado self-defense law, requiring an actual or threatened act of imminent unlawful physical force, thereby raising the evidentiary bar for prosecutors seeking to negate a self-defense claim. It strongly reinforces the principle that jury instructions must be directly supported by evidence, and that giving an unsupported instruction, especially one emphasized by the prosecution, is prejudicial and can constitute reversible error. The case serves as a caution to trial courts against allowing speculative theories to limit a defendant's affirmative defenses, ensuring that the jury's focus remains on the evidence presented rather than on abstract legal principles.
