Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
Case No. 10CA2481
Attorneys for Petitioner: Cynthia H. Coffman, Attorney
General John T. Lee, Senior Assistant Attorney General Kevin
E. McReynolds, Assistant Attorney General Denver, Colorado
Attorneys for Respondent: Megan A. Ring, Public Defender
Jason C. Middleton, Deputy Public Defender Denver, Colorado
OPINION
GABRIEL, JUSTICE.
¶1
This case requires us to decide whether a division of the
court of appeals erred in concluding that the statutory right
to self-defense can apply to justify a defendant's
robbery of taxi cab services.[1] Prosecutors charged respondent
Edward Kevin DeGreat with attempted second degree murder,
first degree assault, and aggravated robbery arising out of
an incident in which DeGreat did not pay his taxi fare after
an altercation with a taxi driver. According to DeGreat, he
initially intended to pay the fare but then realized that he
was a few dollars short and offered to go into his apartment
to retrieve the rest of the money. DeGreat claims that the
driver then attacked him, the two began fighting, and when
DeGreat believed he saw the driver brandish a weapon, he
stabbed the driver in self-defense. Thereafter, the driver
fled and DeGreat left the scene.
¶2
On these unique facts, we conclude that the division
correctly determined that DeGreat was entitled to a
self-defense instruction as to the aggravated robbery charge,
although our reasoning differs from that on which the
division relied. In our view, DeGreat presented some credible
evidence to allow a reasonable jury to conclude that the
robbery of services that DeGreat allegedly committed was
committed in self-defense.
¶3
Accordingly, we affirm the division's judgment, albeit
based on different reasoning.
I.
Facts and Procedural History
¶4
One evening, DeGreat and two neighbors shared a taxi ride
home. When they arrived, the neighbors exited the cab,
leaving DeGreat to pay the fare, as the passengers had agreed
he would do.
¶5
The parties disagree about what happened next. According to
DeGreat, when he attempted to pay the fare, he realized that
he was four dollars short, and he told the driver that he
would go get the remaining amount from his apartment. The
driver asked DeGreat for his identification, DeGreat provided
it to the driver, and the driver put it in his pocket. The
driver then made a telephone call and locked DeGreat in the
taxi. DeGreat asked the driver why he had locked the doors,
and the driver responded that he had called the police.
DeGreat, who had been sitting in the front passenger seat,
then jumped into the backseat to try to get out of the locked
taxi, after which the driver got out, unlocked the doors, and
allowed DeGreat to get out. DeGreat reiterated that he would
go get the money, but the driver responded that he should not
leave because the police were on their way. DeGreat again
said that he was going to get the money, and he turned around
to go to his apartment.
¶6
According to DeGreat, the driver then grabbed him by the back
of his shirt, and the two men began fighting. In the course
of this altercation, DeGreat felt a burning sensation on his
chin, saw blood on his shirt, and asked the driver if the
driver had stabbed him. According to DeGreat, the driver then
put his hand behind his leg, and DeGreat "saw something
gleam in the [driver's] hand." The driver walked
toward DeGreat and said, "I told you, you not going
nowhere. I'm tired of this, people running off with my
money . . . . I want all of my money." At that point,
DeGreat decided that he needed to protect himself. So, he
took a knife from his pocket and started swinging at the
driver. DeGreat felt the knife hit the driver, after which
the driver fled and DeGreat walked away toward his apartment.
¶7
The driver recalled the events differently. He claimed that
after DeGreat had handed over his identification, he refused
to get out of the car and became agitated. DeGreat then
suddenly jumped into the backseat. The driver did not know
what was going on, but he "knew it was not good in any
case," and so he got out of the taxi. According to the
driver, DeGreat then became more agitated, an altercation
ensued, and DeGreat ultimately stabbed him, causing him to
flee.
¶8
The People subsequently charged DeGreat with attempted second
degree murder, first degree assault, aggravated robbery, and
two crime of violence counts, and the case proceeded to
trial. At trial, DeGreat admitted that he stabbed the driver
and that he did not pay the driver for the taxi services. He
asserted, however, that in doing so, he acted in
self-defense.
¶9
At the close of the evidence, the trial court instructed the
jury, as pertinent here, that self-defense is an affirmative
defense to the attempted second degree murder and first
degree assault charges, as well as to a number of lesser
included offenses on which the jury was instructed. The court
denied DeGreat's request for a self-defense instruction
on the aggravated robbery charge, however, relying on
People v. Beebe, 557 P.2d 840, 841 (Colo.App. 1976),
in which the division had concluded that "self-defense
is not an affirmative defense to the crime of aggravated
robbery," and People v. Laurson, 15 P.3d 791,
794 (Colo.App. 2000), which cited Beebe for the same
proposition.
¶10
The jury ultimately convicted DeGreat of aggravated robbery,
second degree assault-reckless, and two of the crime of
violence counts. The jury acquitted DeGreat of the remaining
counts.
¶11
DeGreat appealed, arguing, as pertinent here, that the trial
court had erroneously refused to instruct the jury on
self-defense in relation to the aggravated robbery charge.
DeGreat contended that the trial court improperly relied on
Beebe because, after that decision, Colorado courts,
including this court, had made clear that self-defense is an
affirmative defense to specific and general intent offenses.
In particular, DeGreat relied on this court's decision in
People v. Pickering, 276 P.3d 553, 555 (Colo. 2011),
in which we stated, "With respect to crimes requiring
intent, knowledge, or willfulness, such as second-degree
murder, self-defense is an affirmative defense." DeGreat
asserted that because aggravated robbery is a general intent
crime and he had offered evidence that he acted in
self-defense, the trial court erred in refusing to instruct
the jury on self-defense as an affirmative defense to
robbery.
¶12
In a unanimous, published decision, a division of the court
of appeals reversed DeGreat's aggravated robbery and
related crime of violence convictions, remanded for a new
trial on those counts, and otherwise affirmed the trial
court's judgment. People v. DeGreat, 2015 COA
101, ¶ 57, ___ P.3d ___. As pertinent here, relying on
Pickering, the division concluded that self-defense
could apply to any general intent crime, irrespective of the
type of crime at issue. Id. at ¶¶ 11-13,
___ P.3d at ___. The division thus concluded that because
DeGreat presented evidence that his failure to pay was
"entangled with his belief" that the use of
physical force was necessary to defend himself from the
driver's use of force, DeGreat was entitled to a
self-defense instruction as to the aggravated robbery charge.
Id. at ¶ 15, ___ P.3d at ___. In so ruling, the
division acknowledged the prior division's ruling in
Beebe but observed that Beebe did not
analyze the self-defense statute and was irreconcilable with
Pickering. Id. at ¶ 16, ___ P.3d ___.
¶13
The People petitioned this court for certiorari review, and
we granted that petition.
II.
Analysis
¶14
We begin by setting forth the applicable standard of review.
We then discuss the statutes and case law related to robbery
and self-defense. ...