Background
Aurora police officers Matthew Campbell, Davidson Belizaire, and Scott Lockwood were responding to a call for service when Campbell heard a loud thump on the back of his marked patrol car and saw Justyn Layne McCarty walking away. After Campbell directed McCarty to stop and speak with him, McCarty turned and approached. Campbell testified that McCarty appeared confrontational and aggressive, with balled fists and a puffed-out chest.
When McCarty came close and lunged his head toward Campbell, Campbell grabbed McCarty’s chest protector. A struggle followed in which McCarty swung at Campbell, attempted to place Belizaire in a headlock, and bit Campbell’s hand. A jury convicted McCarty of one count of resisting arrest but acquitted him of three second-degree-assault counts and another resisting-arrest count. The district court imposed two years of supervised probation and ordered $6,306.23 in restitution for medical expenses associated with Campbell’s injuries.
The Court’s Holding
The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to giving the challenged instructions, the division held that some evidence supported both the provocation and initial-aggressor exceptions to self-defense. McCarty’s aggressive return toward the officers, disregard of commands, balled fists, close approach, and head movement toward Campbell permitted the jury to consider whether he provoked the confrontation or initiated it by threatening unlawful force.
The division also upheld the limits placed on cross-examination. Questions asking the officers whether their conduct constituted excessive force or exposed them to consequences called for legal conclusions. The trial court also acted within its discretion by pausing Campbell’s cross-examination so the parties could investigate a database entry incorrectly indicating that his POST certification was inactive.
The division further upheld the suppression and restitution rulings. The record supported findings that the officers had reasonable suspicion to investigate the patrol-car incident, that the encounter became consensual after they discontinued the initial investigation, and that probable cause arose when McCarty swung at Campbell and placed Belizaire in a headlock. In any event, an unlawful seizure would not have required suppression of evidence of McCarty’s subsequent resisting-arrest offense. Finally, the evidence supported the finding that the struggle caused Campbell’s injuries and resulting medical expenses, even though the jury acquitted McCarty of assault.
Key Takeaways
- A self-defense exception may be submitted to the jury when some evidence supports it, viewed in the light most favorable to giving the instruction.
- A court may prevent cross-examination that asks witnesses to decide whether a legal standard, such as excessive force, was satisfied.
- An acquittal on assault charges did not foreclose restitution where the evidence showed that injuries and medical costs were proximately caused by the conduct underlying the resisting-arrest conviction.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the relatively low evidentiary threshold for instructing a Colorado jury on the provocation and initial-aggressor limitations to self-defense. It also confirms that trial courts retain substantial control over cross-examination when questions seek legal opinions or rest on information requiring verification.
For restitution purposes, the opinion emphasizes that courts examine the causal relationship between the offense of conviction and the claimed loss. An acquittal on a related charge does not necessarily defeat restitution when the record independently establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that the convicted conduct caused the loss.