Peo v. Banks

── Peo v. Banks ── Court: Colorado Court of Appeals Date: May 28, 2026 Category: General 23CA1700 Peo v Banks 05-28-2026 COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS Court of Appeals No. 23CA1700 Adams County District Court No. 22CR889 Honorable Kyle Seedorf, Judge The People of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hayden Allen Banks, Defendant-Appellant. JUDGMENT REVERSED AND CASE REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS Division VI Opinion by JUDGE SCHOCK Grove and Yun, JJ., concur NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e) Announced May 28, 2026 Philip J. Weiser, Attorney General, Caitlin E. Grant, Assistant Attorney General, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellee Megan A. Ring, Colorado State Public Defender, Dilyn K. Myers, Deputy State Public Defender, Denver, Colorado, for Defendant-Appellant ¶1 Defendant, Hayden Allen Banks, appeals his conviction for second degree murder. He argues, among other things, that the district court reversibly erred in instructing the jury on the right of a trespasser to use physical force in self-defense. Because we agree, we reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial. I. Background ¶2 David Islas was a resident at the Venture Inn hotel. He and Banks were friends, having known each other for many years. One night, Banks went to Islas’s room to retrieve a counterfeit $100 bill. ¶3 Surveillance footage shows Banks leaving Islas’s room and standing just outside the door talking to Islas for a couple minutes. When Islas re-entered the room (and was no longer visible on video), Banks stepped into the doorway, with one foot inside, and remained there for several more minutes — apparently still talking to Islas. ¶4 After about ten minutes, the door began to close from the inside, while Banks kept his foot in the doorway. Seconds later, as the door closed, Banks drew a gun, reached into the room, and fatally shot Islas. In a subsequent police interview, Banks claimed that Islas had pointed a gun at his head and that he had drawn his 1  own gun in response, accidentally firing when the door closed on his arm. A gun was found next to Islas’s body after the shooting. ¶5 Banks was charged with first degree murder. At trial, there was no dispute that he shot and killed Islas. But he argued he had acted in self-defense. The prosecution countered that Banks was not entitled to claim self-defense because Islas was legally authorized to use force to defend his premises. A jury convicted Banks of second degree murder as a lesser included offense. II. Defense of Premises Instruction ¶6 Banks contends that the district court erred by (1) instructing the jury on defense of premises and (2) including in that instruction that a trespasser who is subject to lawful physical force has no privilege to use physical force in self-defense. Because we agree with Banks’s second argument, we address that argument first. A. Additional Background ¶7 At Banks’s request, the district court instructed the jury on self-defense. Consistent with section 18-1-704(1), C.R.S. 2025, the instruction provided that Banks was legally authorized to use physical force “to defend himself . . . from what he reasonably believed to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force.” 2 ¶8 The prosecution requested an instruction on the use of physical force in defense of premises under section 18-1-705, C.R.S. 2025. The instruction provided that Islas was legally authorized to use physical force as “reasonably necessary to prevent or terminate what he reasonably believed was the commission or attempted commission of an unlawful trespass.” The instruction also included a definition of trespass and attempted trespass.