The Colorado Supreme Court announced on Monday that it will hear a case that questions whether a jury, in deciding on self-defense, must conclude unanimously which element of the defense that prosecutors refuted beyond a reasonable doubt.

In February 2015, police escorted Clarence Mosely from the Shotgun Willie’s strip club in Glendale for unruly behavior. Shortly thereafter in the parking lot, a group of men confronted Mosely and, in the ensuing altercation, Mosely stabbed one of them. The trial court instructed the jury that in order to find Mosely guilty of felony menacing beyond a reasonable doubt, they had to reject an exception for self-defense. That exception had four elements, of which the prosecution had to disprove “beyond a reasonable doubt, at least one of the above numbered conditions”.

The court further told members of the jury that they must be unanimous in their verdict, and that “all of you must agree on all parts of it.”

While the jury deliberated, one member sent a question to the judge asking whether the jurors had to agree upon prosecutors’ invalidation of the same self-defense element, or whether they could reach a verdict in which each member merely believed the prosecutors had refuted one of the four elements.

Over the objection of Mosely’s lawyer, the judge responded that “there is no requirement that you unanimously agree on which numbered condition or conditions have been disproven.”

Writing for a three-member panel of the Colorado Court of Appeals, Judge Daniel M. Taubman found that the trial court judge was mistaken, because the four elements were predicated on the plaintiff either being the aggressor or responding to the aggressor, both of which could not be true.

“Because the trial court answered the juror’s question in a manner that conflicted with the unanimity instruction, some jurors might have concluded that the provocation exception applied, while others concluded that the initial aggressor instruction applied,” Taubman wrote. “This was improper.”

He reversed the felony menacing conviction and ordered a new trial, noting that the judge’s instruction affected the outcome.

The case is Clarence Mosely v. The People of the State of Colorado.