Colorado Jury Instructions, Criminal (2023)
CHAPTER H: DEFENSES
SECTION I: DEFENSES THAT ARE GENERALLY APPLICABLE
H:27.SP: SPECIAL INSTRUCTION: REASONABLE BELIEF THAT A PERSON HAS COMMITTED AN OFFENSE
COMMENT
1. Previously, this instruction explained to the jury the definition of a “reasonable belief” pursuant to section 18-1-707(4), C.R.S. But in 2020, the legislature repealed and reenacted this subsection, which no longer defines “reasonable belief.” See Ch. 110, sec. 5, § 18-1-707(4), 2020 Colo. Sess. Laws 445, 455. Accordingly, in 2020, the Committee deleted this instruction.
Furthermore, the Committee notes that this legislation became effective on September 1, 2020. See Ch. 110, sec. 18(3), 2020 Colo. Sess. Laws 445, 461. Therefore, if the charges involve conduct allegedly committed before that date, the 2019 version of this instruction applies. 1129
[230531]
Previous version:
Colorado Jury Instructions-Criminal (COLJI-Crim) (2014)
H:27.SP SPECIAL INSTRUCTION: REASONABLE BELIEF THAT A PERSON HAS COMMITTED AN OFFENSE
For purposes of Instruction ___, defining the affirmative defense of [insert name of affirmative defense from Instructions + H:19–20.5, 23–24], a reasonable belief that a person has committed an offense means a reasonable belief in facts or circumstances which if true would constitute an offense.
If the believed facts or circumstances would not constitute an offense, an erroneous though reasonable belief that the law is otherwise does not justify the use of + [physical force] [deadly force] [a chokehold] to make an arrest or to prevent an escape from custody.
Accordingly, in this case you must determine the reasonableness of the defendant’s belief that [insert name of alleged victim] had committed the offense of [insert name(s) of offense(s)], as defined in Instruction[s] __.
COMMENT
1. See § 18-1-707(4), C.R.S. 2016.
2. Although it is unclear whether the definition of a “reasonable belief that a person has committed an offense” in section 18-1-707(4) applies where a private citizen makes an arrest at the direction of a peace officer, it appears that it does not because, in such circumstances, the relevant question is limited to whether the citizen knew that arrest was “not authorized.” See § 18-1-707(5), C.R.S. 2016.
3. + In 2016, the Committee modified the second paragraph to reflect new legislation pertaining to chokeholds. See Ch. 341, sec. 1, § 18-1-707(4), 2016 Colo. Sess. Laws 1390, 1391.