Editor’s Note: Law Week Colorado edits court opinion summaries for style and, when necessary, length.
William Brown, while under the influence of methamphetamine, broke into a locked bathroom and stabbed his friend, Damion Martin, in the back of his skull. Martin was embracing Brown’s sister, who was naked except for a shower curtain she had wrapped around her body.
Brown was unaware that Martin and his sister had a prior intimate relationship. What Brown did know, however, was that Watson had just yelled at Martin to “get the [f—] out” of the bathroom. Seconds later, Brown entered the bathroom and stabbed Martin twice, killing him.
When Brown’s sister asked why he stabbed Martin, he exclaimed, “He was going to kill you,” according to the opinion. After the stabbing, Brown told three other people that Martin had threatened to rape his sister.
The government tried Brown on one count of first-degree murder. Brown requested jury instructions on defense of another and the lesser included offense of involuntary manslaughter. The district court refused to instruct the jury on defense of another, holding there was insufficient evidence that Brown’s claim was objectively reasonable.
But the court also omitted, without explanation, Brown’s requested involuntary manslaughter instruction, raising the theory of imperfect defense of another. Brown argued that this omission was plainly erroneous. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed.
According to the opinion, a defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on imperfect defense of another and the corresponding lesser included offense of involuntary manslaughter if he tenders such an instruction and produces sufficient evidence that he subjectively believed deadly force was necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to another, notwithstanding the fact that his belief was objectively unreasonable. The 10th Circuit found that Brown met that standard in this case.
The 10th Circuit reversed Brown’s conviction and remanded for a new trial.
Renteria, et al. v. New Mexico Office of the Superintendent of Insurance, et al.
This appeal arises from an enforcement action taken by the New Mexico Office of the Superintendent of Insurance against Gospel Light Mennonite Church Medical Aid Plan, which resulted in a final order requiring Gospel Light to cease operating as a health care sharing ministry in New Mexico.
Breanna Renteria, Laura Smith and Tammy Waters are members of Gospel Light. They sought a preliminary injunction to enjoin NMOSI from enforcing the final order, which the district court denied.
The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals found that the plaintiffs bore the burden of showing a clear and unequivocal right to the extraordinary remedy of a preliminary injunction. Its review was for an abuse of discretion, and it couldn’t conclude the district court abused its discretion by declining to resolve arguments not made, inadequately developed and subject to abstention.
The 10th Circuit concluded that the plaintiffs failed to show a substantial likelihood of success on any of the claims properly before the court.
The 10th Circuit affirmed the denial of the preliminary injunction.
Judge Joel Carson dissented. He wrote that state governments must enforce statutes in a neutral and generally applicable manner and that, in this case, that means the NMOSI can’t regulate Gospel Light, a religious organization, more stringently than it regulates similarly situated secular organizations like labor unions and fraternal organizations.
His dissent said that the district court reached the opposite conclusion when it allowed NMOSI to impose statutory restrictions upon Gospel Light while exempting similarly situated secular organizations, and that the majority upheld NMOSI’s impermissible action.
Because the district court’s and majority’s conclusion ran contrary to established 10th Circuit and U.S. Supreme Court precedent precluding discrimination based on religious views, he respectfully dissented.
Magnetsafety.org, et al. v. Consumer Product Safety Commission
This appeal arises from the Consumer Product Safety Commission’s second attempt to regulate small, high-powered magnets that can cause serious injury or death when ingested by children.
The court struck down CPSC’s first attempt due to shortcomings in the data underlying its cost-benefit analysis. CPSC went back to the drawing board and returned with the final rule that petitioner industry groups challenged in this case, according to the opinion.
The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals denied the petition because it found the rule was supported by substantial evidence and that the structure of CPSC is constitutional.
Center for Biological Diversity, et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al.
The Center for Biological Diversity and 350 Colorado challenged the Environmental Protection Agency rule partially approving Colorado’s plan to reduce ozone pollution.
The Clean Air Act required Colorado to lower ozone to acceptable levels by July 2021. But by the time the EPA issued its approval, that deadline had already passed—and the state’s plan had failed to attain the intended reduction.
The petitioners asked the court to vacate the EPA’s approval as to two components of Colorado’s plan, asserting that the approval violated the Clean Air Act in three ways.
The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals denied the petition for review because it disagreed with the petitioners’ reading of the law and the record.