## Facts

- During a rainstorm on May 2, 1981, Megual Mariano Trujillo’s car slid off the road.
- Trujillo broke into Eugene Vories’s mobile home, damaging the outer aluminum door and inner wooden door.
- Trujillo entered the mobile home and remained there overnight.
- At a bench trial, Trujillo admitted entering the mobile home and causing the damage but asserted the statutory “choice of evils” (necessity) justification, claiming he acted to avoid harm from the storm after the car left the roadway.
- The trial court found (1) the property damage did not outweigh any injury Trujillo might have suffered by staying with his car, and (2) Trujillo contributed to the situation by driving at an excessive speed around a sharp turn, losing control and sliding off the road.

## Issues

1. Whether Trujillo’s intentional entry into and damage of another’s mobile home was justified under Colorado’s choice-of-evils (necessity) statute.
2. Whether the necessity defense was unavailable because the threatened harm did not clearly outweigh the harm caused and because Trujillo substantially contributed to creating the emergency.

## Decision

- The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions for first degree criminal trespass and criminal mischief over $200.
- The court held the trial court properly rejected the choice-of-evils defense.
- The court upheld the trial court’s findings that the harm avoided did not clearly outweigh the harm caused and that Trujillo contributed to the emergency through his driving.

## Legal Principles

- Colorado’s choice-of-evils (necessity) justification requires a reasonable belief that the criminal conduct is necessary to avoid a greater harm.
- The defense applies only when the harm sought to be avoided clearly outweighs the harm caused by the criminal conduct, consistent with legislative intent.
- The defense is unavailable when the defendant substantially contributes to creating the emergency or necessity.
- In a bench trial, appellate review gives deference to the trial court’s fact-finding and harm-balancing determinations when supported by the evidence.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed Trujillo’s trespass and criminal mischief convictions because the trial court permissibly found that breaking into and damaging the mobile home was not the lesser evil and that Trujillo’s own conduct helped create the situation he claimed required illegal entry.


People v. Trujillo, 682 P.2d 499 (Colo. App. 1984)