## Facts

- Henry Lee Watkins was at New Joe’s Bar in Denver with his brother, Eddie Watkins, when a dispute arose involving Walter McDonald.
- Eddie Watkins and Walter McDonald argued over access to a pool table; the dispute appeared to subside, then flared again between McDonald and one of Eddie’s friends.
- Walter McDonald and his brother Byron later left the bar, went elsewhere, met David Buckner, and returned to New Joe’s.
- Watkins testified that as the group returned, one of them pointed to Eddie and said, “That’s our man.”
- Eddie, the McDonald brothers, and Buckner went outside to play dice; during the dice game, Watkins fired shots that hit Buckner and McDonald.
- McDonald died from the shooting; Buckner was wounded.
- Watkins testified he fired because he believed Buckner and McDonald were threatening his brother’s life and his own:
  - He claimed Buckner pulled a knife on Eddie while Eddie bent down to throw the dice and that McDonald yelled for Buckner to cut Eddie’s throat.
  - Watkins said Buckner then turned toward him with the knife, prompting Watkins to shoot Buckner.
  - Watkins also testified McDonald advanced toward him with a gun, and Watkins shot McDonald in self-defense.
- An open knife was later found in the bar; no gun was found, and the prosecution presented no additional evidence supporting Watkins’s account of the knife-and-gun sequence.
- Watkins was charged and tried for the killing of McDonald and the shooting of Buckner.
- The trial court instructed the jury on first- and second-degree murder and on self-defense, but refused Watkins’s request for an instruction on criminally negligent homicide as a lesser-included offense.
- The jury convicted Watkins of second-degree murder (McDonald) and first-degree assault (Buckner).

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on criminally negligent homicide as a lesser-included offense of second-degree murder when the evidence could support a finding that Watkins acted with an honest but unreasonable belief in the need to use deadly force.

## Decision

- The Colorado Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial.
- The court held that, on this record, the jury should have been instructed on criminally negligent homicide as a lesser-included offense because the evidence permitted a verdict acquitting Watkins of murder yet convicting him of the lesser offense.

## Legal Principles

- A defendant is entitled to a requested lesser-included offense instruction when there is a rational basis in the evidence for the jury to acquit on the greater charge and convict on the lesser.
- In deciding whether to give a lesser-included instruction, the court does not weigh credibility; the jury may accept parts of a witness’s account and reject others.
- A lesser-included instruction may be required even when the supporting evidence comes primarily from the defendant’s testimony and is only partly corroborated.
- When evidence supports a finding that the defendant perceived danger but responded with deadly force based on an unreasonable (though genuine) belief in the need to act, a jury may be able to find criminal negligence rather than the mental state required for murder; the jury must be given that option if requested and supported by the record.

## Conclusion

Because the evidence allowed a jury to find that Watkins honestly but unreasonably believed deadly force was necessary, the trial court’s refusal to instruct on criminally negligent homicide improperly limited the jury’s verdict choices; the Colorado Supreme Court therefore reversed the convictions and remanded for a new trial with proper lesser-included offense instructions.


People v. Watkins, 586 P.2d 43 (1978)