An Adams County judge provided a confusing instruction to jurors in a murder trial that failed to properly explain all of the nuances of self-defense, the state’s second-highest court ruled last month in reversing the defendant’s conviction.

District Court Chief Judge Don Quick presided over Jorge Garcia’s 2018 trial, where the only question was whether Garcia’s fatal shooting of Fabian Mendoza was justified. Quick adapted a jury instruction on self-defense his colleague, former District Court Judge Thomas R. Ensor, had delivered in a similar case. Garcia’s jury ultimately found him guilty of the lesser offense of manslaughter.

But in 2020, the Court of Appeals deemed Ensor’s original instruction defective and reversed the conviction in the trial Ensor had handled. Once Garcia’s case reached the appellate court, a three-judge panel similarly ordered a new trial after finding Quick’s borrowed jury instruction was just as problematic.

Neither the prosecution nor the defense disputed Garcia had shot Mendoza on Dec. 2, 2017 outside El Viva Villa restaurant, after Mendoza and another man began fighting with Garcia’s brother. Garcia shot Mendoza in the abdomen, and Mendoza later died from his injuries.

Prosecutors charged Garcia with second-degree murder, arguing Garcia used a gun “in response to a fistfight.” Garcia countered with a claim of self-defense, saying his use of force was justified.

An assertion of self-defense can take two different forms. With murder, self-defense is known as an affirmative defense when the defendant admits he committed all elements of the crime, but had a justification for doing so. People may legally use deadly force to defend themselves or others if they reasonably believe there is an imminent danger of death or significant bodily injury from another person, and a lesser degree of force is insufficient.

Unless the prosecution disproves beyond a reasonable doubt any part of the affirmative defense, the jury can acquit a defendant.

With a manslaughter charge, self-defense is known as a traverse, or something that nullifies a key element of the crime – specifically that the defendant acted recklessly. Although self-defense as a traverse operates similarly to self-defense as an affirmative defense, the model jury instructions clarify that a defendant does not act recklessly if they use self-defense. Under those circumstances, a jury must find the defendant not guilty.

Instead of offering separate instructions for how jurors should treat the affirmative defense and the traverse, Quick handed Garcia’s jurors a three-page instruction combining the two. The final paragraph simultaneously explained that people who act in self-defense are not acting recklessly and “cannot be found guilty” of manslaughter, but also that the affirmative defense of self-defense “does not apply” to manslaughter.

There was no explicit directive for how the jury should apply self-defense as a traverse that would acquit Garcia of manslaughter.

Quick’s instruction originally came from Ensor, a longtime judge in Adams County with a long history of appellate courts disapproving of his case handling. Ensor used the combined instruction in the 2016 trial of Jorge Alejandro Luna, who was charged with attempted murder and convicted on a lesser count involving reckless manslaughter. The Court of Appeals overturned Luna’s conviction in 2020, reasoning jurors logically would not have understood how to apply self-defense to reckless conduct, when the judge instructed jurors imprecisely that self-defense did not apply.

Using the Luna decision as a guide, an appellate panel similarly reversed Garcia’s conviction and six-year prison sentence. Because the jury acquitted Garcia of murder, which included the correct jury instruction on self-defense, but convicted him of manslaughter – for which the self-defense instruction was incomplete – the panel concluded the erroneous instructions plausibly affected the outcome.

“As a result, the instruction suggested to the jury that it need not consider all the elements of self-defense when determining whether Garcia acted recklessly or negligently when he shot Mendoza,” wrote Judge Matthew D. Grove in the June 23 opinion. “Yet our case law makes clear that jury instructions must include all the elements of ‘self-defense law’ in Colorado.”

The appellate panel ordered a new trial for Garcia. It did not address several other claims Garcia made in his appeal, including that Quick mistakenly allowed the jury to repeatedly see a slow-motion surveillance video of the shooting. Garcia argued the video was unnecessary because the sequence of the shooting was undisputed, and research has indicated viewers believe violent acts are more intentional when seen in slow motion.

Garcia also sought to overturn Quick’s order that he pay monetary restitution as part of his sentence. On appeal, he noted the window for judges to decide on restitution is 91 days following a conviction. Quick’s order came 381 days later, with nothing indicating Quick had good cause to extend the deadline.

Because the appellate panel overturned Garcia’s conviction, the $12,000 restitution payment for funeral and burial expenses is void.

The case is People v. Garcia.