People v. Thomas
| Decision Date | 26 October 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 87CA1108,87CA1108 |
| Citation | 789 P.2d 470 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joseph D. THOMAS, Defendant-Appellant. . II |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Duane Woodard, Atty. Gen., Charles B. Howe, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen., Richard H. Forman, Sol. Gen., and Wendy J. Ritz, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for plaintiff-appellee.
David F. Vela, State Public Defender, and Barbara S. Blackman, Chief Appellate Deputy State Public Defender, Denver, for defendant-appellant.
Opinion by Judge PLANK.
Defendant, Joseph D. Thomas, appeals the judgment of conviction entered on jury verdicts finding him guilty of attempted heat of passion manslaughter, first degree assault committed in a heat of passion, and crime of violence. We affirm.
Defendant was charged with attempted first degree murder, first degree assault, and crime of violence as the result of an incident in which he struck his employer with a machete after his employer attempted to sexually assault him. The evidence at trial raised issues which required that the jury be instructed on the lesser included offenses of attempted second degree murder and attempted heat of passion manslaughter.
Defendant requested that the jury also be instructed on the affirmative defense of self defense as it applied to attempted first and second degree murder, attempted heat of passion manslaughter, and first degree assault. A self defense instruction was given, but the jury was instructed that it applied to the murder and assault charges only.
Defendant contends the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury that self defense was an affirmative defense to heat of passion manslaughter. We find no error.
Section 18-3-104(1)(c), C.R.S. (1986 Repl. Vol. 8B), defining manslaughter committed in the heat of passion, requires that one knowingly cause the death of another as the result of a "sudden heat of passion, caused by a serious and highly provoking act of the intended victim, affecting the person killing sufficiently to excite an irresistible passion in a reasonable person...." An act committed in the sudden heat of passion is the equivalent to an act in which the actor has lost his self control and is being directed by passion rather than reason. See Coston v. People, 633 P.2d 470 (Colo.1981).
The trial court concluded, and we agree, that heat of passion manslaughter is inconsistent with the affirmative defense of self defense. One is justified in using physical force to defend himself from what he reasonably believes to be the use of unlawful physical force by another person. Section 18-1-704(1),...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Young
... ... See Ortiz v. District Court, 626 P.2d 642 (Colo.1981) ... Thus, the threshold question for us is whether self-defense is available to a defendant who is charged with heat of passion manslaughter. In People v. Thomas, ... Page 1007 ... 789 P.2d 470 (Colo.App.1989) (cert. granted March 19, 1990), a division of this court held that the affirmative defense of self-defense is not available if the charge is heat of passion manslaughter ... In the Thomas holding, the court reasoned that since ... ...
-
Thomas v. People
...the jury that the affirmative defense of self-defense applied to the charge of attempted heat of passion manslaughter. People v. Thomas, 789 P.2d 470 (Colo.App.1989). Having granted Thomas' petition for certiorari, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals, but disapprove the holding t......