Tort Law

Courvoisier v. Raymond

23 Colo. 113, 47 P. 284

Facts

• Courvoisier operated a jewellery store in Denver.
• During a violent disturbance, a group of persons broke into his premises and threatened his safety and property.
• Courvoisier obtained a revolver and drove the intruders from the store.
• A crowd remained outside, and the situation continued to appear dangerous and confused.
• Raymond was a special police officer responding to the disturbance.
• Raymond approached Courvoisier and attempted to identify himself as a police officer.
• Courvoisier claimed that he did not hear or understand the identification.
• When Raymond approached and moved his hand towards his hip or pocket, Courvoisier mistakenly believed that he was one of the rioters and was about to attack him.
• Courvoisier fired his revolver and seriously wounded Raymond.
• Raymond sued for assault and battery.
• The jury was instructed, in effect, that Courvoisier could not rely upon self-defence if Raymond was not actually attacking him.

• Whether self-defence may apply where the defendant reasonably but mistakenly believes that the claimant is an attacker.
• Whether Courvoisier’s belief in the need to shoot was honest and objectively reasonable.
• Whether the force used was proportionate to the apparent danger.

• A defendant is privileged to use reasonable force where he honestly and reasonably believes that such force is necessary to protect himself from imminent bodily harm.
• Actual danger is not always necessary.
• A reasonable mistake concerning the existence or identity of the threat may preserve the defence.
• The defendant must prove that:
o he genuinely believed defensive force was necessary;
o the belief was reasonable in the surrounding circumstances; and
o the amount of force used was reasonably proportionate to the apparent danger.
• An unreasonable mistake does not justify the injury.

• Raymond was not in fact attempting to attack Courvoisier.
• However, the absence of an actual attack did not fully answer whether Courvoisier acted in lawful self-defence.
• The incident occurred immediately after Courvoisier’s store had been invaded during a riot.
• He had faced a crowd, threats and serious danger during darkness and confusion.
• Raymond approached from the direction of the disturbance, and his movement towards his pocket could have appeared threatening.
• A jury could conclude that Courvoisier honestly mistook him for one of the attackers.
• The jury also had to decide whether a reasonable person who had experienced the same events would have made that mistake.
• If the belief was both honest and reasonable, Courvoisier could rely upon self-defence even though Raymond was innocent.
• The trial instruction wrongly made liability depend upon whether Raymond was actually assaulting Courvoisier.
• That instruction prevented proper consideration of apparent necessity and reasonable mistake.
• The defence would still fail if Courvoisier acted carelessly, fired without reasonable grounds or used deadly force against a threat that appeared minor.

• The Colorado Supreme Court reversed the judgment for Raymond and ordered a new trial.
• It held that a defendant may rely upon self-defence against an innocent person where the defendant reasonably mistakes that person for an attacker.
• Courvoisier had to establish both an honest belief and reasonable grounds for that belief.
• The force used also had to be reasonable in relation to the apparent danger.
• The court did not finally declare that the shooting was justified; it held that the jury had been given an incomplete and incorrect instruction.