People v. Fontes
89 P.3d 484 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Economic necessity alone is insufficient to support the affirmative defense of 'choice of evils.' This defense is unavailable when a defendant had reasonable legal alternatives and the claimed injury was not sufficiently imminent.
Facts:
- Jesus Bernardo Fontes's three young children suffered from serious health problems.
- On the day of the incident, the children had not eaten for more than twenty-four hours.
- Fontes had requested food from three different food banks but was turned down by all of them.
- Fearing the lack of food would worsen his children's health, Fontes went to a convenience store.
- At the store, Fontes presented a false identification card and attempted to cash a forged payroll check for $454.75.
- The store clerk, alerted by a suspicious birth date on the ID, called the police while Fontes was still in the store.
- At the clerk's request, Fontes endorsed the check and placed his fingerprint on it.
- Fontes was arrested at the scene of the crime.
Procedural Posture:
- Jesus Bernardo Fontes was prosecuted at a trial in a state trial court.
- At trial, Fontes's wife testified for the prosecution, but the court later struck her testimony from the record and instructed the jury to disregard it.
- The trial court refused Fontes's request for a jury instruction on the affirmative defense of 'choice of evils'.
- A jury found Fontes guilty of forgery, criminal impersonation, and misdemeanor theft.
- The trial court entered a judgment of conviction based on the jury's verdict.
- Fontes's motion for a new trial was denied by the trial court.
- Fontes, as the appellant, appealed the judgment of conviction to the Colorado 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 a defendant's claim of economic necessity, specifically the need to commit forgery and impersonation to obtain money to feed his children, entitle him to a jury instruction on the affirmative defense of 'choice of evils'?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Graham
No, a defendant's claim of economic necessity does not entitle them to a jury instruction on the 'choice of evils' defense. The court reasoned that this statutory defense requires the defendant to prove the crime was necessary to avoid an imminent injury after exhausting all reasonable legal alternatives. Here, the court found that Fontes failed to establish that the injury to his children was sufficiently imminent and that he had not pursued all other legal alternatives for obtaining food. The court affirmed the legal principle that economic necessity, while potentially a mitigating factor in sentencing, cannot be used as a legal justification for a crime. It also noted the lack of a direct causal connection between the crime (cashing a relatively large forged check) and the harm sought to be prevented (immediate hunger).
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high threshold for successfully asserting the 'choice of evils' affirmative defense in Colorado. It clarifies that chronic, ongoing conditions like poverty and hunger do not satisfy the 'imminent injury' requirement, which demands a sudden and unforeseen emergency. The ruling effectively forecloses the use of this defense for crimes motivated by economic desperation, directing such considerations to the sentencing phase of a trial rather than the determination of guilt. This precedent makes it significantly more difficult for defendants in similar economic situations to argue that their actions were legally justified by necessity.
Unlock the full brief for People v. Fontes