Colorado’s second-highest court last month ordered a new trial for a man who stabbed and killed his victim during a fight at the National Western Complex, concluding the trial judge failed to give a key jury instruction.

In June 2020, Christopher G. Smith and Jared Villaluz-Jones were residing at a temporary homeless shelter at the complex during the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic. A physical altercation ensued and Smith stabbed Villaluz-Jones in the neck, killing him.

Jurors acquitted Smith of first-degree murder but convicted him of second-degree murder. He received a 30-year prison sentence.

On appeal, Smith argued District Court Judge Jay S. Grant should have instructed jurors to consider whether Smith acted in the “heat of passion,” which would have reduced the severity of his murder conviction and also his sentence. 

A three-judge panel for the Court of Appeals agreed with Smith, noting Villaluz-Jones did throw the first punch and the circumstances could have mitigated — though not excused — Smith’s criminal conduct.

“Consequently, some evidence, no matter how improbable or slight, supported a finding that Smith acted in response to a highly provoking act sufficient to excite an irresistible passion in a reasonable person,” wrote Judge Anthony J. Navarro in the panel’s Dec. 7 opinion.

In order for jurors to consider whether to convict someone of a lesser murder offense, there must be evidence that their actions happened during a “sudden heat of passion,” in which the victim performed a “highly provoking act.” The act, in turn, needs to “excite an irresistible passion” in the defendant, with no time for them to hear the “voice of reason and humanity.”

The Court of Appeals observed that in Smith’s case:

• Villaluz-Jones first attacked Smith by punching him

• A witness indicated Smith appeared “scared” during the fight, and that Villaluz-Jones kept “coming and coming” after Smith

• Smith told police he had no plan to kill Villaluz-Jones

The Court of Appeals acknowledged jurors had rejected the idea that Smith acted in self-defense. However, other court decisions have allowed for the heat-of-passion instruction even when the victim does not physically provoke an attack — for instance, by wearing gang paraphernalia.

“The fight itself was a quick event between Villaluz-Jones throwing the first punch and Smith delivering the fatal wound. Witness testimony indicated that the fight was continuous,” wrote Navarro. “Such a brief period could allow a jury to find that an insufficient interval of time passed for the voice of reason and humanity to be heard.”

The panel concluded the omission of the jury instruction might have affected the outcome of the case. Jurors could have concluded Villaluz-Jones provoked the stabbing, but that Smith’s reaction was not a reasonable exercise of self-defense, Navarro added.

The panel ordered a new trial for second-degree murder, with the correct jury instruction. The Colorado Attorney General’s Office asked the panel to reconsider allowing for Smith to simply be resentenced, rather than proceeding to a second trial. The panel denied the request last week.

The case is People v. Smith.