Colorado is a “stand your ground state.” This means you have no duty to retreat before you can defend yourself or others from bodily harm.
In short, if your “fight or flight” response to an immediate physical threat is to fight, you can do so without fearing a criminal conviction. It does not matter if you could easily run away.
How “Stand Your Ground” Works in Colorado
If you reasonably believe someone is about to physically assault you or someone else, Colorado law allows you to respond with proportional force. For example, if someone shoves you, it would be reasonable to shove back; however, it would be unreasonable to stab them since stabbing is far more violent than shoving.
There are cases where it is justified to kill in self-defense or defense of others. Firstly, you would have to reasonably believe using non-deadly force will not deflect the threat. Secondly, at least one of the following scenarios must be true:
- You reasonably believe that you or another victim is in imminent danger of dying or being seriously injured; and/or
- The aggressor reasonably appears to be using physical force while committing burglary; and/or
- The aggressor reasonably appears to be committing kidnapping, robbery, or sexual assault.1
When building a self-defense case for my clients, I aim to show the jury that they would have responded in the same way as you given the circumstances. The key is to show you acted out of necessity as any reasonable person would in your shoes.
When You Cannot Stand Your Ground
Courts have found that standing your ground is unlawful in the following three situations:
- You are the initial aggressor. The only time you can stand your ground in a fight you started is if you withdraw and tell your opponent so, but your opponent keeps fighting; or
- The fight is an unauthorized “combat by agreement.” Rumbles, gang fights, duels, etc. are illegal even if your opponents agreed to it; or
- You are being lawfully arrested. Resisting arrest is a crime unless the officer is using excessive force.2
Standing Your Ground vs. Make My Day
In Colorado, you can “stand your ground” at any location as long as you are allowed to be there. In contrast, the “Make My Day Law” applies only in your residence, but it gives you more power to fight back.
Specifically, the “Make My Day” law lets you to use physical force – including lethal force – on a home invader if the following three things are true:
- The intruder unlawfully enters your home (which also includes a hotel room, trailer, rented apartment, or Airbnb); and
- You reasonably believe the intruder has committed or will commit a crime (other than the intrusion); and
- You reasonably believe the intruder may use physical force (even if very little) against an occupant.
Also called the “Castle Doctrine” or the “Force Against Intruders Statute, “Make My Day” is a stronger defense than “stand your ground.” This is because juries are less likely to question your actions when you are defending your home.
Meaning of “Residence”
Note that you can claim the “Make My Day” defense only when the intruders are inside your residence. This does not include being:
- At the front door,
- On the roof,
- On the patio, terrace, porch, or balcony, or
- In the common area or hallway of an apartment building or hotel.
Recently the Colorado Supreme Court recently ruled that a basement is considered a part of a residence, even if it is being used as a rental. When making its decision, the justices relied on a 1982 Colorado Supreme Court case that considered a garage to be part of a residence as well.3
The “stand your ground” defense applies to any location you are allowed to be.
Using “Stand Your Ground” as a Defense
Here at Colorado Legal Defense Group, I have gotten literally thousands of violent crime charges reduced or dismissed by claiming that my clients were lawfully standing their ground. This defense is especially effective in cases involving the following offenses:
- First-degree murder, which are premeditated killings;
- Second-degree murder, which is knowingly killing someone without premeditation;
- First-degree assault, which includes seriously hurting someone, usually with a deadly weapon;
- Second-degree assault, which comprises causing a non-serious injury with a deadly weapon;
- Third-degree assault, which is causing a non-serious injury without a deadly weapon; and
- Domestic violence crimes, which usually involve assault between current or former intimate partners.
Helpful evidence in these cases include video footage, eyewitness accounts, and medical expert testimony. These experts can often determine when wounds are inflicted in self-defense and not in an act of initial aggression.
“Stand Your Ground” in Other Property Cases
In situations that fall short of a home invasion, Colorado law lets you use appropriate physical force necessary to prevent or stop what reasonably seems to be trespass, theft, vandalism, or interruption of utility services.
Meanwhile, if someone is trespassing on property that is not a dwelling, you may use deadly force only if:
- You are acting in lawful self-defense or defense of others (as discussed above), or
- You reasonably believe deadly force is required to prevent first degree arson, which is the burning of a building or structure.4
Additional Reading
For more in-depth information, refer to these scholarly articles:
- No Ground on Which to Stand: Revise Stand Your Ground Laws So Survivors of Domestic Violence Are No Longer Incarcerated for Defending Their Lives – Berkeley Journal of Gender Law & Justice.
- No Retreat: The Impact of Stand Your Ground Laws on Violent Crime – Criminal Justice Review.
- Shoot to Kill: A Critical Look at Stand Your Ground Laws – University of Miami Law Review.
- From Threat to Victim: Why Stand Your Ground Laws Are Inherently Prejudiced and Do Nother to Further Justice – Hastings Race and Policy Law Journal.
- The Distraction That Is Stand Your Ground – Florida International University Law Review.
Legal References
- CRS 18-1-704 – Use of physical force in defense of a person – definitions.
(1) Except as provided in subsections (2) and (3) of this section, a person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he may use a degree of force which he reasonably believes to be necessary for that purpose.
(2) Deadly physical force may be used only if a person reasonably believes a lesser degree of force is inadequate and:
(a) The actor has reasonable ground to believe, and does believe, that he or another person is in imminent danger of being killed or of receiving great bodily injury; or
(b) The other person is using or reasonably appears about to use physical force against an occupant of a dwelling or business establishment while committing or attempting to commit burglary as defined in sections 18-4-202 to 18-4-204; or
(c) The other person is committing or reasonably appears about to commit kidnapping as defined in section 18-3-301 or 18-3-302, robbery as defined in section 18-4-301 or 18-4-302, sexual assault as set forth in section 18-3-402, or in section 18-3-403 as it existed prior to July 1, 2000, or assault as defined in sections 18-3-202 and 18-3-203.
(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1) of this section, a person is not justified in using physical force if:
(a) With intent to cause bodily injury or death to another person, he provokes the use of unlawful physical force by that other person; or
(b) He or she is the initial aggressor; except that his or her use of physical force upon another person under the circumstances is justifiable if he or she withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person his or her intent to do so, but the latter nevertheless continues or threatens the use of unlawful physical force;
(c) The physical force involved is the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law; or
(d) The use of physical force against another is based on the discovery of, knowledge about, or potential disclosure of the victim’s actual or perceived gender, gender identity, gender expression, or sexual orientation, including but not limited to under circumstances in which the victim made an unwanted nonforcible romantic or sexual advance toward the defendant. Nothing in this subsection (3)(d) precludes the admission of evidence, which is otherwise admissible, of a victim’s or witness’s conduct, behavior, or statements.
(4) In a case in which the defendant is not entitled to a jury instruction regarding self-defense as an affirmative defense, the court shall allow the defendant to present evidence, when relevant, that he or she was acting in self-defense. If the defendant presents evidence of self-defense, the court shall instruct the jury with a self-defense law instruction. The court shall instruct the jury that it may consider the evidence of self-defense in determining whether the defendant acted recklessly, with extreme indifference, or in a criminally negligent manner. However, the self-defense law instruction shall not be an affirmative defense instruction and the prosecuting attorney shall not have the burden of disproving self-defense. This section shall not apply to strict liability crimes.
(5) As used in this section, unless the context otherwise requires:
(a) “Gender identity” and “gender expression” have the same meaning as in section 18-1-901(3) (h.5).
(b) “Intimate relationship” has the same meaning as in section 18-6-800.3.
(c) “Sexual orientation” has the same meaning as in section 18-9-121(5)(b).Idrogo v. People (Colo. 1991) 818 P.2d 752. People v. Willner (Colo. 1994) 879 P.2d 19. People v. Toler (Colo. 2000) 9 P.3d 341. People v. Monroe (Colo. 2020) 468 P.3d 1273. People v. Garcia (Colo. 2001) 28 P.3d 340. Thirty-three states including Colorado recognize the “stand your ground” defense. The first state to recognize “stand your ground” was Florida in 2005.
- Same. Vigil v. People (Colo. 1960) 353 P.2d 82.
- CRS 18-1-704.5 – Use of deadly physical force against an intruder.
(1) The general assembly hereby recognizes that the citizens of Colorado have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes.
(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 18-1-704, any occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including deadly physical force, against another person when that other person has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, and when the occupant has a reasonable belief that such other person has committed a crime in the dwelling in addition to the uninvited entry, or is committing or intends to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the uninvited entry, and when the occupant reasonably believes that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant.
(3) Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from criminal prosecution for the use of such force.
(4) Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from any civil liability for injuries or death resulting from the use of such force.
(5) As used in this section, unless the context otherwise requires, “dwelling” does not include any place of habitation in a detention facility, as defined in section 18-8-211(4).People v. Cushinberry, (Colo. App. 1993) 855 P.2d 18. People v. Rau, (Colo. 2022) 501 P.3d 803. People v. Rau (Colo. 2022) 501 P.3d 803 (“[T]he supreme court holds that the basement was part of the defendant’s dwelling because it was part of the building that he used for habitation. The court views the basement in this case in much the same way it viewed the attached garage in People v. Jiminez, 651 P.2d 395, 396 (Colo. 1982). Just as the garage in Jiminez was part of the building that was used for habitation, the basement here was part of the building that the defendant used for habitation.”). - CRS 18-1-706 – Use of physical force in defense of property (“A person is justified in using reasonable and appropriate physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what he reasonably believes to be an attempt by the other person to commit theft, criminal mischief, or criminal tampering involving property, but he may use deadly physical force under these circumstances only in defense of himself or another as described in section 18-1-704.”). CRS 18-1-705 – Use of physical force in defense of premises (“A person in possession or control of any building, realty, or other premises, or a person who is licensed or privileged to be thereon, is justified in using reasonable and appropriate physical force upon another person when and to the extent that it is reasonably necessary to prevent or terminate what he reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission of an unlawful trespass by the other person in or upon the building, realty, or premises. However, he may use deadly force only in defense of himself or another as described in section 18-1-704, or when he reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what he reasonably believes to be an attempt by the trespasser to commit first degree arson.”).
