Colorado’s second-highest court has found a Mesa County judge provided a jury instruction that was unsupported by the evidence, requiring reversal of the defendant’s 2019 murder conviction. 

Although the defense attorney for Joseph William Peace did not object to the faulty self-defense instruction at the time, a three-judge panel for the Court of Appeals deemed the error obvious because it ran contrary to clear court precedent.

“Given that the evidence presented to disprove Peace’s self-defense claim was far from overwhelming, the court’s instructional error, as exacerbated by the prosecutor’s commentary, casts serious doubt on the reliability of Peace’s conviction for second degree murder,” wrote Judge John Daniel Dailey in the July 28 opinion.

There was no dispute that Peace shot and killed Eric Ludwick in March 2018 while Peace was the passenger in a vehicle and Ludwick was driving. The question for the jury was whether Peace’s actions amounted to self-defense.

Peace had gone to an acquaintance’s home to settle a small monetary debt. The jury heard evidence that Ludwick, who was also living there, was having a “serious meltdown” and “just completely losing his f—ing mind.” Eventually, all three men went to bed in the house.

Peace decided to leave around 1 a.m. and called for a ride. The noise from Peace leaving woke up the acquaintance, who ordered Peace out of the home. Ludwick reportedly “forced” Peace to accept a ride with him, even though Peace was uneasy given Ludwick’s behavior. A toxicology report would later show Ludwick had a “moderate” amount of methamphetamine in his blood.

After the two men got into the car, Peace, the only witness, said Ludwick threatened to physically harm him. Ludwick also allegedly began reaching beside the driver’s seat for something out of Peace’s view. Reportedly, Peace vocalized his fear that Ludwick had a gun.

“Dude, please stop reaching on the other side of the seat,” Peace said, according to his interview with police. “I said, ‘I have a gun on me. And I don’t want you to pull a gun on me because this is going to end up badly for both of us, one of us is going to get hurt. Like, please stop.’ I’m begging him to stop.” 

At one point, Peace pulled his gun from his waistband and allegedly set it on his lap. Ludwick reportedly slammed on the brakes and “lunged” at Peace. Peace then fired a single shot into Ludwick’s chest. 

“I thought he was pulling a gun on me,” Peace later said. Peace fled from the scene.

After a 2019 jury trial, Peace was convicted of second-degree murder, tampering with evidence and other gun- and drug-related charges. He received a sentence of more than 100 years in prison.

On appeal, Peace challenged only his murder conviction. In particular, he focused on an instruction Chief Judge Brian J. Flynn provided to jurors at trial.

Under Colorado law, people are justified in using deadly force to defend themselves if they reasonably believe they are in imminent danger of death or serious injury and using a lesser degree of force will not stop the threat. In order to obtain a conviction, the prosecution can disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt or show a defendant was not justified in using force if, among other things, he was the “initial aggressor.”

Flynn instructed the jury that Peace had acted in self-defense unless he was the initial aggressor. On appeal, Peace contended the evidence at trial – namely through his own testimony – had shown Ludwick was, in fact, the aggressor.

“Basically, the exception is inapplicable when the alleged victim attacked and/or threatened the defendant first (or at least appeared to do so) and, in response, the defendant shot him,” wrote Deputy State Public Defender Meredith O’Harris.

The government countered that the jury could nonetheless have deemed Peace the initial aggressor, based on him pulling out his gun and displaying it. It also pointed to Peace’s behavior after the fact – fleeing, hiding from police, disposing of evidence – as suggesting Peace had not lawfully acted in self-defense.

The appellate panel acknowledged the only evidence about what happened in the car came from Peace. However, the information all indicated Peace was not the initial aggressor in the confrontation.

“Yes, Peace had displayed his weapon before shooting Ludwick. But Peace had done so only in response to Ludwick’s threats and perceived threatening behavior, and, even then, only after warning Ludwick to stop the particular behavior before someone got hurt,” Dailey wrote.

He elaborated that Peace’s post-shooting conduct did not illustrate what happened in the lead-up to the encounter. Dailey explained the jury instruction amounted to an error because juries may try to fit the facts of the case into the instruction. Statements by the prosecutor during closing arguments also may have given jurors the impression they had to decide whether Peace was the initial aggressor.

“Who was the initial aggressor in that vehicle? Well if you believe everything (Peace) told you in that interview he is still the initial aggressor,” the prosecutor said.

“Without, as noted before, any supporting evidence, the prosecutor characterized Peace as ‘the’ initial aggressor,” Dailey observed. “And she did so on the assumption that Peace had to be the initial aggressor (and thus, could not be acting in self-defense) because he was the only one with a gun and was responding only to verbal conduct. But that is not correct.”

The panel ordered a new trial for second-degree murder.

The case is People v. Peace.

Editor’s note: Due to a typographical error in court documents, the victim’s name was misspelled in the original article. His name was Eric Ludwick.