Andrews v. People
Colorado Supreme Court
800 P.2d 607 (1990)

- Written by Carolyn Strutton, JD
Facts
Andrews and others (the protestors) (defendants) attempted to block the entrance to the Rocky Flats federal nuclear-weapons facility in Colorado. The protestors hoped to stop the manufacture of nuclear-weapon parts inside the plant and to eventually force the closure of the facility. The protestors obstructed traffic and disobeyed state police officers who ordered them to move. The protestors were arrested and charged with obstruction of a roadway and disobeying the request of a peace officer. At trial the protestors pleaded not guilty and served notice that they intended to invoke the choice-of-evils defense. The choice-of-evils defense was a statutorily created defense that could only be invoked if the defendant produced an offer of proof supporting the statutory elements of the defense. The trial court ruled that the protestors had failed to sufficiently do so and therefore refused to allow the protestors to invoke the choice-of-evils defense before the jury. The protestors were convicted, sentenced to community service and small fines, and appealed. The appellate court agreed that the protestors had failed to lay the required foundation for a choice-of-evils defense. The Colorado Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Erickson, J.)
Dissent (Quinn, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.