Colorado’s second-highest court concluded last week that an incomplete self-defense instruction required the reversal of an El Paso County defendant’s murder convictions.

Demetrius Montez Martin was among those present late at night at a club in Colorado Springs. An argument ensued and Martin got in his vehicle and drove off. Someone fired multiple gunshots in the direction of his vehicle. Martin stopped, got out, and fired his own gun back toward the crowd of people in the parking lot.

He fatally shot Margie Crow, who was driving her own vehicle and was not involved in the firefight.

At trial, Martin asserted the prosecution had not proven he was the shooter and, alternatively, that he acted in self-defense. Jurors convicted Martin on two counts of murder and related firearms offenses. He received a life sentence in prison.

On appeal, Martin argued District Court Judge Catherine Mitchell Helton mistakenly omitted key language from the self-defense instruction given to jurors. She declined to instruct jurors specifically that Martin would be legally authorized to use force on “persons acting in concert” against him, or that he used force out of an “apparent necessity” under the circumstances.

During oral arguments last year to a three-judge Court of Appeals panel, Judge Michael H. Berger wondered how Martin’s actions could even be classified as self-defense.

“That’s a question for the jury to decide,” responded defense attorney Eric A. Samler. “Once the (trial judge) decides that a self-defense instruction is appropriate, it’s not for this court to decide, ‘Well, is that self-defense or not self-defense?'”

“The argument was, he stopped because he was concerned that if he just continued to flee, he would continue to get chased and at some point, he’s in a position where he’s just gonna be gunned down,” summarized Judge Craig R. Welling. “He’s under assault. And instead of continuing to flee and hoping they don’t pursue, he responds in self-defense. And that’s reasonable and it should have considered the number of assailants. That’s the theory of self-defense.”

By 2-1, the appellate panel’s majority determined Martin’s jury should have been instructed to consider his actions in light of the possibility that multiple assailants were attacking him. Alternatively, jurors should have considered the “apparent necessity” of Martin’s actions.

Welling, writing for himself and Judge Daniel M. Taubman in the Feb. 19 opinion, noted the evidence suggested that there could have been as many as five different weapons fired at the crime scene.

“And, although the court gave the jury an instruction that tracked the pattern jury instructions, it still didn’t properly instruct the jury on multiple assailants,” wrote Welling.

“This is not a self-defense case,” wrote Berger in dissent. Although the prosecution did not object to a self-defense instruction at trial, Berger argued Helton would have been on solid ground had she declined to give one in the first place.

Further, Berger believed the omission of the multiple assailants language did not likely affect the jury’s verdict.

“Martin was already leaving the scene of the fight when he decided to stop, walk back towards the nightclub, then walk back to his car, retrieve a gun, and start shooting. This is not self-defense,” he wrote.

The case is People v. Martin.