People v. Watkins
196 Colo. 377, 1978 Colo. LEXIS 609, 586 P.2d 43 (1978)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on a lesser included offense if there is any evidence, however improbable, unreasonable, or slight, that supports the lesser charge, as it is the jury's exclusive role, not the trial judge's, to weigh such evidence.
Facts:
- Eddie Watkins and Walter McDonald argued over access to a pool table at New Joe’s Bar.
- Although Eddie and Walter resolved their initial dispute, another argument subsequently flared between Walter and a friend of Eddie’s, which remained unresolved.
- Walter McDonald, his brother Byron, and David Buckner later went to another bar, then returned to New Joe's with an apparent intention to 'settle the score.'
- Defendant Henry Lee Watkins, his brother Eddie, the McDonald brothers, and David Buckner went outside New Joe's Bar to play craps.
- During the dice game, Henry Lee Watkins testified he saw David Buckner pull a knife on Eddie Watkins, and Walter McDonald yelled to Buckner to harm Eddie Watkins with the knife.
- Henry Lee Watkins stated he tried to warn his brother, but Buckner turned the knife towards Henry Lee Watkins, at which point Henry Lee Watkins fired his gun at Buckner.
- Henry Lee Watkins further testified that Walter McDonald then started toward him with a gun, causing Henry Lee Watkins to shoot McDonald in self-defense.
- An open knife was later found in the bar, but no other evidence was presented to support Henry Lee Watkins's testimony about weapons other than his own gun.
Procedural Posture:
- Henry Lee Watkins was charged with second-degree murder of Walter McDonald and first-degree assault upon David Buckner.
- At trial, the judge instructed the jury on first-degree murder, second-degree murder, and the affirmative defense of self-defense.
- The trial judge refused Henry Lee Watkins's request for the jury to be instructed on criminally negligent homicide, reasoning there was no evidence that Walter McDonald’s death was negligently rather than intentionally caused.
- The jury found Henry Lee Watkins guilty of second-degree murder and first-degree assault.
- Henry Lee Watkins appealed his conviction to the Colorado Supreme Court, arguing that the trial court's refusal to give instructions related to lesser included offenses was error.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the trial court err by refusing the defendant's request for a jury instruction on the lesser included offense of criminally negligent homicide, even when the evidence supporting it was slight?
Opinions:
Majority - justice Pringle
Yes, the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on criminally negligent homicide. The Court held that when there is any evidence, however improbable, unreasonable, or slight, which tends to reduce a homicide to a lesser grade, the defendant is entitled to an instruction thereon. It is for the jury, under proper instructions, and not the trial judge, to weigh and consider the evidence and determine what grade of crime, if any, was committed. Henry Lee Watkins's testimony that he held a good faith, though unreasonable, belief that his and his brother's lives were threatened presents a case for criminally negligent homicide under state statute. The Court distinguished cases where there was 'absolutely no evidence' for a lesser charge, reiterating that the defendant is entitled to an instruction on their theory of the case as revealed by the evidence, even if supplied solely by the defendant. The error was deemed prejudicial as it prevented the jury from considering a valid legal theory supported by some evidence. The Court also noted that where an assault arises from the same incident and involves a defendant acting on a good faith but unreasonable belief in justification, the sentence for assault may be limited by the penalties for criminally negligent homicide. The Court affirmed that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to determine 'serious bodily injury' for the first-degree assault charge.
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces the principle that trial courts must provide jury instructions for lesser included offenses when any supporting evidence exists, no matter how improbable that evidence may seem to the judge. It solidifies the jury's role as the ultimate fact-finder, emphasizing that the court should not usurp this function by withholding instructions that align with a defendant's plausible, albeit potentially unconvincing, defense theory. The ruling safeguards defendants by ensuring that all legally cognizable interpretations of the evidence are presented to the jury, preventing judges from prejudging the credibility of testimony, particularly the defendant's own account, which could lead to a less severe conviction.
