O'Shaughnessy v. People
2012 WL 439693, 269 P.3d 1233, 2012 CO 9 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To be entitled to a jury instruction on the affirmative defense of abandonment for an attempt crime, a defendant must present 'some credible evidence' of a complete and voluntary renunciation of criminal intent. The fact that the defendant injured the victim during the attempt does not, as a matter of law, automatically foreclose this defense.
Facts:
- Michael O’Shaughnessy approached Geri David from behind in a grocery store parking lot.
- O’Shaughnessy brandished a six-inch hunting knife, held it to David's face, and ordered her into her car.
- As David sat in the driver's seat and kicked at him to ward off the attack, O'Shaughnessy stabbed her multiple times, causing injuries to her neck, throat, thigh, and hand.
- During the assault, O’Shaughnessy told David, “You’re going to die,” and demanded her money.
- David told him she did not have any money and turned to the passenger-side floor to look for her purse.
- When David turned back, O’Shaughnessy had left the scene without taking her purse or any money.
Procedural Posture:
- At trial, Michael O’Shaughnessy requested a jury instruction on the affirmative defense of abandonment.
- The trial court denied the request.
- A jury in the trial court convicted O’Shaughnessy of attempted first degree murder, attempted aggravated robbery, and other related charges.
- O’Shaughnessy (as appellant) appealed his convictions to the Colorado Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court).
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court, holding that the affirmative defense of abandonment is unavailable once a defendant injures the victim.
- The Colorado Supreme Court (the state's highest court) granted certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals.
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 injuring a victim during the commission of an attempted crime automatically foreclose the defendant's right to assert the affirmative defense of abandonment?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Rice
No. Injuring a victim does not create a bright-line rule that automatically bars a defendant from claiming the affirmative defense of abandonment. To receive a jury instruction on an affirmative defense, the defendant must present 'some credible evidence' on the issue. The court of appeals erred by creating a rule that the abandonment defense is unavailable once a defendant injures the victim. The proper inquiry focuses on whether the defendant has provided some evidence of a complete and voluntary renunciation of criminal intent. In this specific case, however, O'Shaughnessy was not entitled to the instruction because he failed to meet this evidentiary threshold. His mere withdrawal after stabbing the victim six times, especially while facing resistance, was insufficient to constitute 'some credible evidence' of a voluntary renunciation of his intent to commit either attempted aggravated robbery or attempted first degree murder.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the standard for asserting the affirmative defense of abandonment for attempt crimes in Colorado, rejecting a rigid, per se rule based on the victim suffering injury. By doing so, the court maintains a fact-specific inquiry focused on the defendant's subjective intent and whether their renunciation was truly complete and voluntary. While the evidentiary standard ('some credible evidence') is low, the ruling demonstrates that a defendant's mere desistance, particularly after inflicting significant harm and encountering victim resistance, will not suffice. This nuanced approach requires trial courts to carefully assess the specific facts to determine if the defense can be presented to a jury, rather than relying on a simple bright-line test.
Unlock the full brief for O'Shaughnessy v. People