### IN THE COURT OFCRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE ATJAC KSON A ssi gne d onBrie fs D ec ember 1, 200 9 STA TE OFTEN NES SEE v. RA SHA D G . R OBINS ON
D irec t A p p ea l f

ro m th e C ircu itC o u rt fo r M a d ison C o u n ty N o. 08- 327 R oger A . P age, Judge

N o. W 2009- 00264- C C A - R 3- C D - F i l ed M ay 17, 2010

A M adi s on C ount y j ur y convi ct ed the d efe ndant , R as had G

. R obi ns on, of pos s es s i on of con traband i n a p enal i nst i t uti on , a C l ass C fel on y, t w o coun t s of m i sdem eano r as saul t , C l ass A m isde m ea n o rs, an d v an d ali sm u n d er $ 5 0 0 , a C lass A m isde m ea n o r. T h e tri al co u rt s ent ence d t he def

endantt o s i x year s in the T enness ee D epar t m entof C or r ect i on fort he fel ony convi ct i on and el even m ont hs , t w ent y- ni ne days i n t he count y j ai l foreac h of t he m i s dem eanorconvi ct i ons . T he cour tor der ed t h e d efe n dantt o s er ve t he s ent ence s cons ecut i vel y t o eac h ot her and t o cas e num ber 07- 372. O n appea l , t he def endantchal l enges t he tr i al cour t ’ s j ur y i ns tr uct i ons . Fol l ow i ng our r evi ew , w e af f i r m t he j udgm ent s of

t he tr i al c o u rt

. T enn. R . A pp. P . 3 A ppeal as of R i ght ; Judgm ent s of

t he C i rcui t C ourt A f

f i rm ed
J

. C. M C L IN , J

. , del i ver ed t he opi ni on of t he cour t , i n w hi ch T HOMAS T. W OO DA LL and J OH N E VER ETT W I LLI AMS , J J

. , j oi ned. G e o rg e M o rto n G o o g e , D istric t P u b lic D e fe n d e r, an d P a u l E d w a rd M e y e rs, A ss ista n t P u b lic D ef ender , J acks on, T ennes s ee, fort he appe l l ant , R as had G

. R obi ns on. R ober tE

. C ooper , J r . , A t t or ney G ener al and R epor t er ; R enee W

. T ur ner , A s s i s t antA t t or ney G en e r a l ; J e r r y W o o d a l l , Di s tr i c tAt t o r n e y Gen e r a l ; a n d Be n M a y o , As s i s t a n tDi s tr i ct A t t or ney G ener al , fort he appe l l ee, St at e of T ennes s ee. OP I NI ON Backg r ound
I n M ay 2008, a M adi s on C ount y gr and j ur y r eturne d an i ndi ct m entchar gi ng t he defend ant, R ashad G

. R ob i nson , w i t h tw o cou nts of aggravated assaul t , C l ass C fel on i es,Dep uty Rickman e xplaine d that the day room is equipp ed w ith sh owers anda telepho ne fo r the 1 inmates’ us e

.

T es ti mo nyat tri alrev eale d th at “ lo ckdo w n” mean s th e in mate enters his cel l an d cl os es thed oo r. 2 The defend ant is then securedin his ce ll. The depu ties canun loc k ac e l l door from th e co ntrol ro om but canno t lock

a door. C ell do ors lo ck automatically whe n clo sed. -2- pos s es s i on of

contr aband i n a penal i ns t i t ut i on, a C l as s C fel ony, and vandal i s m under$500, a C l as s A m i s dem eanor . T he par t i es pr es ent ed t he fol l ow i ng evi dence at t he Sept em ber19, 2 0 0 8 , tri a l.
D eput y N i ck R i ckm an, of t he M adi s on C ount y Sher i f f ’ s D epar t m ent , t es t i f

i ed thathe w as on dut y att he C r i m i nal J us t i ce C om pl ex f r om 4: 00 p. m . unt i l 12: 00 a. m . on D ece m ber 22, 2007. T hatni ght , he w as i n t he A pod, t he m axi m um s ecur i t y w i ng of t he j ai l , w her e the d e fe n d a n t w a s h o u se d in a n iso latio n c e ll. A t 1 0 :0 0 p .m ., th e d e fe n d a n t h a d c o m p lete d h is one hour o f re cr eat i on t i m e i n t he day r oom adj ace ntt o hi s cel l w hen D eput y R i ckm an 1 appr oache d t he doort o t he day r oom , w hi ch w as cl os ed and l ocked, and i ns t ruc ted t he def endantt o l ockdow n. D eput y R i ckm an expl ai ned t hathe nor m al l y gi ves i nm at es a f ew 2 m in u tes to g a th e r th e ir b e lo n g in g s a n d re tu rn to th e ir c e ll. A fte r in stru c tin g th e d e fe n d a n t, D eput y R i ckm an w entt o t he contr ol r oom . H e not i ced thatt he def endant had notr etur ned t o hi s cel l af

t ert hr ee orfourm i nut es pas s ed, s o he i ns t r uct ed the def endantover t he i nt er com t o l ockdow n. D eput y R i ckm an then ret ur ned t o t he day r oom door , and he obs er ved t he d e fe n d a n t:

s t andi ng cl os e t o hi s cel l door

. . . . [ H ] e had w hat ap pear ed t o be a t ow el w r apped ar ound t he fr ontof hi s face , cover i ng hi s nos e and m out h ar ea, goi ng al l t he w ay ar ound t o t he back, t i ed i n t he back. [ H e obs er ved] w hatappea r ed to b e m a y b e stra n d s o f to w e ls o r so c k s w ra p p e d a ro u n d h is h a n d , h is k n u c k le ar ea, and al s o hi s el bow ar ea.

. . . [ H e obs er ved] t he s am e t hi ng w r apped a r ound por t i ons of hi s l ow erbody.
D eput y R i ckm an re peat ed hi s i ns tr uct i on for t he defendant t o l ockdow n, butt he def endant d id n o t r e s p o n d

. O n cr os s - exam i nat i on, Deput y R i ckm an t es t i f i ed t hathe, D eput y H ogg, D eput y J ones and Ser geantL avenue opened the door t o t he day r oom . A t t hat poi nt , t he def endantw ent i nt o hi s cel l and gr abbed s ocks cont ai ni ng bar s of s oap, one i n eac h hand. D eput y J ones t hen r etr i eved a s hi el d f

r om t he contr ol r oom . T he fourdeput i es ent er ed t he day r oom behi nd t he sh ield . T h e y e a c h h a d c h e m ica l sp ra y , an d th e y u se d o n e b u r s t o f sp ra y o n th e d e fe n d a n t. D epu t y R i ckm an w as unaw are of any gri evan ce t hat the d efendan tm i gh thav e fi l ed ag ai nst-3-

ot herdeput i es . H e w as al s o unaw ar e w het her t he def endant had r eques t ed t o s peak w i t h a s er geant , doct or , orm ent al heal t h pr ofes s i onal t hatday. D eput y R i ckm an st at ed t hati tw as pos s i bl e thatt he def

endantw as i n t he i s ol at i on cel l beca us e ot her i nm at es j um ped hi m and th a t th e d e fe n d a n t h a d b e e n in th e h o s p ita l fo r h e a d in ju ri e s . D eput y A nt hony W ayne J ones , of t he M adi s on C ount y Sher i f f ’ s D epa r t m e n t , t e s t i f

i ed t hathe r es ponded t o a ca l l foras s i s t ance f r om D eput y R i ckm an at10: 00 p. m . on D ece m ber 22, 2007. H e obs er ved t he def endanti n t he day r oom , w r apped i n t ow el s . H e w as conce r ned beca us e “thatus ual l y m eans t hatt he i nm at e i s pr epar i ng t o f i ght

. ” D eput y J ones t es t i f i ed that th e re w a s n o o n e e lse w ith th e d e fe n d a n t in th e d a y ro o m , th a t n o o n e w e n t in sid e to a ss a u lt hi m , and t hat , t o hi s know l edge, no one had ha r m ed the def endant

. T he def

endantcont i nued t o r ef u se instruc t i ons t o l ockdow n unt i l he ent er ed hi s cel l , atw hi ch poi ntt he deput i es i n s tr u c t e d h i m t o c l o s e t h e d o o r . T h e d e fe n d a n t , h o we v e r , e x i t e d h i s c e l l a g a i n , c a r r y i n g t wo so c k s w ith tw o b ars o f soa p inside ea ch so ck

. D ep u ty Jo n es testi fi ed that inm ates a re al l ow ed t w o bar s of

s oap forhygi ene purpos es , and “[ a] ppar ent l y [ t he def endant ] had bee n hoar di ng t he others oap. ” W hen t he def endantcam e outof

hi s cel l w i t h t he s ocks and s oap, D epu t y Jon es w ent t o the contr ol room t o r et ri eve a plexi glas s shi el d that w ou l d co ver m ost o f a p erso n ’s b o d y b ec au se h e h ad d eterm ined that the s itu ati o n co u ld resu ltin b o d il y h arm t o t he deput i es . T he deput i es had che m i cal s pr ay as an of fens i ve w eapon, butt hey di d not h a v e b a to n s o r o th e r w e a p o n s . D eput y J ones w as t he f

i r s t of f i cer t o ent ert he day r oom , behi nd t he s hi el d. T hey tr i ed to u s e c h e m ic a l sp ra y to su b d u e th e d e fe n d a n t, bu t th e sp ra y w a s in e ffe c tiv e . A s D e p u ty Jones ap proach ed the defenda nt, he repeatedl y st ruck t he shiel d w i t h the soap-l aden socks. T he deput i es backe d t he def endanti nt o the b ack of t he day r oom , and t he def endantt hen s w ung a s ock atD eput y J ones , s tr i ki ng him i n t he for ehea d. T he def endantal s o s tr uck S e rg e a n t L a v e n u e , b re a k in g th e se rg e a n t’s g las se s. D e p u ty Jo n e s te stifie d th a t th e y tried to r es tr ai n t he def

endantw i t h handcuf

f s , butt he def

endantcont i nued f

i ght i ng. D eput y J ones fel l t o t he gr ound, and the def en d an t fell o n t op of

hi m . T he def

endantr epea t edl y s tr uck D eput y J ones i n t he r i bs w i t h hi s f i s t s . E vent ual l y, t he deput i es gott he def endantont o t he gr ound, handcuf

fed hi m , and pl ace d hi m i n hi s cel l

. T hey s ecur ed t he cel l and r em oved the res trai nts t hroug h the f

l ap in t he d oo r. D epu t y Jon es t est i fi ed thatt he d epu t i es di d n ot use any w eapons ot hert han the sh iel d and the che m i cal s pr ay. D eput y J ones s ai d t hathe had s een “ t he s oap i n t he s ock” befor e and cons i der ed i t a danger ous w eapon be caus e of t he for ce w ith w h ich so m e o n e c o u ld sw in g th e so c k . D e p u ty Jo n e s b e liev e d th a t th e w e a p o n c o u ld b re a k b o n e s o r e v e n k il l s o m e o n e . H e tes tified th a t th e d e fe n d a n t sw u n g th e so c k s w ith enou g h fo r c e t o p u s h t h e s h i e l d b a c k e a c h t i m e h e s t r u c k

. Dep u t y J o n e s d e m o n s t r a t ed for th e c o u rt h o w th e d e fe n d a n t u s e d th e s o c k s . O n cro ss-ex am ination , D ep u ty Jo n es test if ied that h e d id n o t con side r t h e d efe n d an t’ s b e h a v io r o n th e n ig h t o f D e c e m b e r 2 2 , 2 0 0 7 , to b e n o rm a l, b u t h e a n d th e o th e r d e p u ties d id-4-

n o t d isc u ss in m a tes ’ m e n tal h e a lth iss u e s b e c a u se it w a s n o t in th e ir jo b d e s c r ip tio n to det e r m i n e i f

s o m e o n e i s m e n t a l l y f i t

. He d i d n o tr e fe rt h e d e fe n d a n tt o t h e m e d i c al depar t m entt hatni ghtbeca us e the def endantw as noti nj ur ed. D eput y J ones w as unaw ar e of any gr i evanc es f

i l ed by the def

endantagai ns thi m . T he def endant had been i n al t er cat i ons w ith d e p u tie s in th e p a s t. O n r e- di r ectexam i nat i on, D eput y J ones s ai d t hatt he d efe n d ant w as i n pr ot ect i ve cu s t ody beca us e of al t er cat i ons w i t h ot her i nm at es . T he def endant “[ gave t hem ] m o re di s ci pl i nar y pr obl em s t han m os t

. ” D eput y J ones i dent i f i ed a pi ctur e of hi m s elf, take n on D ece m ber22, 2007, w hi ch s how ed thatt he br i dge of hi s nos e w as br ui s ed fol l ow i ng t he e n c o u n te r w ith th e d e fe n d a n t. S e rg e a n t O w e n T a y lo r L a v e n u e , o f th e M a d iso n C o u n ty S h e riff’s D e p a rtm e n t, co rrob o rated D ep u ty R ickm an an d D ep u ty Jo n es’s testi m o n y . H e ide n ti fi ed a p ict u re s h o w in g h is g la s s e s th a t th e d e fe n d a n t b ro k e a n d th e b ru is in g o n h is fa c e . O n cr os s - exam i nat i on, Ser geant L avenue t es t i f i ed t hathe w as t he s hi f

ts uper vi s ort hat ni ght

. H e knew t hatt he def endant had been gi ven hi s m eal s t hatday, buthe di d notknow w hethert he def

endant at e hi s m eal s or t he l as t t i m e t hat t he def endants how er ed. A ccor di ng t o S ergeant Lav enu e, i nm at es knew t hat they fi rs thad t o lockdo w n b efor e he w ou l d d i scuss

“ g rip e s” w ith th e m . S e rg e a n t L a v e n u e sa id “ [th e d e fe n d a n t] h a d b e e n th e re lo n g e n o u g h to know t he pr ot ocol

. ” H e di d not know t he defendant ’ s m ent al s t at e t hat day. H e bel i eved the def endantw as notact i ng r at i onal l y. Ser geantL avenue s ai d, “[ T he def endanti s ] r at i onal w h e n h e w a n ts to b e . H e ’s a g g re ss iv e w h e n h e d o e sn ’t w a n t to b e .” S e rg e a n t L a v e n u e d id notknow w hen t he def

endantl as ts aw a m ent al heal t h pr ovi der , nor di d he know w het hert he d e fe n d a n t h a d re c e iv e d h is m e d ic a tio n th a t d a y . O n re -d ire c t e x a m in a tio n , S e rg e a n t L a v e n u e sa id th e d e p u ties c a n n o t fo rc e a n in m a te to e a t, t a k e sh o w e rs, o r ta k e th e ir m e d ica tio n s. O n re -c ro ss -e x a m in a tio n , h e sa id h e w o u ld i nfor m t he nursing staff i f an i nm at e r ef

us ed t o eatort ake m edi cat i ons , and t hei rr ecor ds w o u ld re v e a l th a t s itu a tio n . T he def endant t es t i f

i ed t hat he had as ked t o t al k t o t he s er geant , but t h e d ep u ti es w o u ld n o t let h im . H e w a n ted to d isc u ss w ith th e se rg e a n t ab o u t th e d e p u ties n o t d o in g th e ir j ob s. H e sai d thatD epu t y Jon es had ass ault ed hi m before, res ult i ng i n a scar on h i s face, so h e g o t th e so c k s w ith so a p fro m h is ce ll. T h e d e fe n d a n t sa id th a t in m a tes h a d ju m p e d h im t w i ce. O nce the otheri nm at es hi thi m w i t h a m et al s how er head, and he ha d t o go t o t he hos pi t al fors t i t ches

. H e s ai d t he deput i es “ant agonize [d]” hi m by cal l i ng hi m nam es and “us ed t o m es s t he phone up on purpos e. ” H e bel i eved the deput i es s pr ayed pe ppers pr ay and s pi ton hi s food. T he defendant had pre vi ous l y f i l ed a gr i evanc e aga i ns tD eput y J ones , but h e d id n o t g e t a re s p o n s e to th e g ri e v a n c e .-5-

T h e d e fe n d a n t tes tified th a t h e d id n o t sw in g th e so c k s w h e n th e d e p u ties c a m e in to t he day r oom . H e s ai d D eput y J ones hel d t he s hi el d w i t h one hand and punc hed hi m i n t he face w i t h t he ot her

. T he def endant “t ook a s w i ng athi m but[ he] m i s s ed. ” H e then dr opped t he s oap and pus hed D eput y J ones . W hen D eput y J ones fel l t o t he gr ound, he j um ped on hi m . A not herdeput y s t epped on hi s hand at t hat poi nt

. T he defendant s ai d he w as w r apped i n t ow el s forhi s pr ot ect i on. H e deni ed as s aul t i ng t he de p u ti es an d s ai d t hathe w as pr ot ect i ng hi m s el f

. H e t es t i f i ed t hat he di d notfol l ow i ns t r uct i ons t o l ockdow n beca us e he did n o t s e e t hat the sergeant w as w i t h the dep uti es. T he d efendan tsai d a p sychiatri st pr es cr i bed m edi cat i on for hi m , but t he m edi ci ne “m ade t hi ngs w or s e, ” s o he s t opped t aki ng it. Fol l ow i ng t he cl os e of pr oof and del i ber at i ons , t he j ur y r etur ned thei rver di ct s , f i ndi ng t he def endantgui l t y of

pos s es s i on of

contr aband i n a penal i ns t i t ut i on, t w o count s of m i s dem eanoras s aul t , and vanda l i s m under$500. T he tr i al cour ts ent ence d hi m as a R ange I s t andar d of

fendert o s i x year s i n t he T ennes s ee D epar t m ent of C or r ect i on for pos s es s i on of contr aband a nd el even m ont hs , t w ent y- ni ne days i n t he count y j ai l foreac h of t he m i s dem eanorconvi ct i on s. T h e cour tor der ed t he def endantt o s er ve t he s ent ence s co ns ecut i vel y t o eac h ot herand t o cas e num ber07- 372. T he cour tdeni ed t he def enda n t’ s m o tio n fo r n e w trial, a n d h e tim e ly p e rfe c ted th is a p p e a l. A n a ly sis O n appea l , t he def

endantchal l enges t he cour t ’ s j ur y i ns t r uct i ons . Speci f i cal l y, he ar gues t hati tw as err orfort he tr i al cou rt to resp ond t o t he j ur y’ s ques t i on aboutt he def endant ’ s m ent al capa bi l i t y b y instruct i ng t hem t o onl y cons i dert he def endant ’ s m ent al s t at e w i t h r es pect t o “i nt ent i onal or know i ng” conduct and nott o i ns t r uctt hem t o cons i der h is m e n ta l state w ith resp ec t t o h is self-de fen se c lai m . T h e state resp o n d s tha t th e c o u rt su ffic ien tly in stru c ted th e ju ry in th e ju ry c h a rg e w ith re g a rd to th e d e fe n d a n t’s m e n tal s tate a n d h is s e lf-d e fe n s e c la im . W e a g re e w ith th e s ta te

. U ndert he U ni t ed St at es and Tennes s ee Const i t ut i ons , a def endant has a r i ghtt o t r i al b y ju ry . Stat e v. G ar r i s on , 40 S. W

. 3d 426, 432 ( T enn. 2000)

. A def endantal s o has a r i ght t o a corr ectand com pl et e cha r ge of t he l aw , s o t hateac h i s s ue of factr ai s ed by t he evi dence w ill b e s u b m itte d to th e ju ry o n p ro p e r i n s tr u c tio n s . I d. In e v alua ti n g claim s o f error in jury i ns tr uct i ons , cour t s m us tr em em bert hat“‘ [ j ] ur or s do nots i t in sol i t ar y i s ol at i on boot hs p arsing instr uct i ons fors ubt l e s hades of m eani ng. ’ ” Stat e v. V

ann , 976 S. W

. 2d 93, 101 ( quot i ng B o y d e v . C a lif o rn ia , 494 U

. S. 370, 380- 381 ( 1990) )

. T h ere fore , w e r evi ew eac h j ur y char ge t o det er m i ne i f i tfai r l y def

i ned t he l egal i s s ues i nvol ved and di d notm i s l ead the j u ry . See S ta te v . H a ll , 9 5 8 S

. W

. 2 d 6 7 9 , 6 9 6 (T en n . 1 9 9 7 ). W hen the tr i al co u rt ’s in stru c ti o n s to th e ju ryc o rre c tly , fu lly , an d f a irlysta te th e a p p lica b le la w , itis n o t er ro r to re f u s e to g iv e a s p e c ia l r e q u e s te d in s tru c tio n . Stat e v. I nl ow , 52 S. W

. 3d 101, 107 ( T enn.-6-

C rim . A p p . 2 0 0 0 ); Stat e v. For bes , 9 1 8 S .W .2 d 4 3 1 , 4 4 7 (T e n n . C rim . A p p . 1 9 9 5 ). T h is cour tm us tr evi ew t he ent i r e j ury char ge; w e can fi nd err oronl yi f, w hen r ead a s a w hol e, t he c h a r g e f a i l s t o f a i r l ys u b mi tt h e l e g a l i s s u e s o rmi s l e a d s t h e j u r ya s t o t h e a p p l i c a b l e l a w. St at e v. P hi

pps , 8 8 3 S

. W

. 2 d 1 3 8 , 1 4 2 (T en n . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 4 ). T he tr i al cour thas t he a u th o ri ty to g iv e s u p p le m e n ta l in s tr u c tio n s in re s p o n s e to a q u e s t i o n b y th e ju ry . Stat e v. M oo re , 7 5 1 S .W .2 d 4 6 4 , 4 6 7 ; see al so St at e v. Ji m G erhardt , N o. W 2006- 02589- C C A

- R 3- C D , 2009 W L 160930, at*13 ( T enn. C r i m . A pp. at Jac ks on, J an. 23, 2009)

. A s a m i xed ques t i on of

l aw and fact , our stan d ard of r evi ew forques t i ons conce r ni ng t he pr opr i et y of j ury i nst ruct i on s i s de novo w ith n o p re s u m p tio n o f c o rr e c tn e s s . St at e v. Sm i l ey , 38 S. W

. 3d 5 2 1 , 5 2 4 (T en n . 2 0 0 1 ).
D u rin g ju ry d e lib e rati o n s, th e ju ry a sk e d th e trial ju d g e , “W h a t is th e m e n tal c a p a b ili ty of t he D ef endant ? W as m edi cat i on us ed forhi s m ent al s t at e or t o contr ol hi s behavi or ?” The tr i al j udge r es ponded, “Y ou s houl d notconce r n yo u rselve s w i t h t he D ef endant ’ s m ent al capa bi l i t y exce ptas s etfor t h i n t he j ur y i ns t r uct i ons w i t h r es pect t o i nt ent i onal and know i ng conduct

. ” The defens e at t or ney obj ect ed t o t he i ns t r uct i on and as ked t hat t he j udge i ncl ude an i ns t r u c t i o n fo rt h e j u r y t o c o n s i d e rt h e d e fe n d a n t ’ s m e n t a l s t a t e i n r e g a r d t o t he r eas onabl enes s of hi s s el f

- def ens e cl ai m . T he j udge overr ul ed t he obj ect i on, concl udi ng t hat th e re q u e s te d in s tr u c tio n w a s in c lu d e d in th e ju ry c h a rg e . T he defendant t es t i f

i ed t hat he act ed t o pr ot ect hi m s el f f r om t he deput i es ; t her efor e, h is te stim o n y fa irly ra ise d th e iss u e o f se lf-d e fe n se . T h e trial j u d g e g a v e a n a p p ro x im a tely four - page i ns tr uct i on on s el f

- def ens e i n t he j ur y char ge, and he de f i ned both i nt ent i onal and know i ng conduct

. C oncer ni ng t he r eas onabl enes s of t he s el f

- def

ens e cl ai m , t he j ur y char ge re a d s in p a rt: I ncl uded i n t he D ef endant ’ s pl ea of notgui l t y i s hi s pl ea of s el f

- def ens e. I f a D ef endant w as notengage d i n unl aw f ul act i vi t y and w as i n a pl ace w her e he or s he had a r i ght t o be, he or s he w oul d have no d u ty to retreat befor e t hr eat eni ng orus i ng for ce a gai ns tt he al l eged vi ct i m w hen and t o t he d e g re e th e D e fe n d a n t re a so n a b ly b e liev e d th e fo rc e w a s im m e d iate ly nece s s ar y t o pr ot ectagai ns tt he al l eged vi ct i m ’ s us e orat t em pt ed u s e of unl aw f ul for ce. I f a D ef endantw as notengage d i n unl aw f ul act i vi t y and w as i n a pl ace w her e he ors he had a r i ghtt o be, he or she w oul d al s o have no dut y t o r etr eat befor e thr eat eni ng orus i ng for ce i nt ended or l i kel y t o caus e death ors er i ous bodi l y i nj ur y i f

t he D ef endan t h ad a r eas onabl e bel i ef t hatt her e w as an i m m i nentdangerof

death ors er i ous bodi l y i nj ur y, the d an g ercr eat i ng t he bel i ef of i m m i nent death or s er i ous bodi l y i nj ur y w as r eal , orhones t l y bel i eved-7-

to b e r e a l a t th e tim e , an d th e b e lief o f d a n g e r w a s fo u n d e d u p o n re a so n a b le g ro u n d s . I n det er m i ni n g w hethert he D ef endant ’ s us e of

for ce i n def

endi ng h im se lf w a s re a so n a b le y o u m a y c o n sid e r no t o n ly h is us e o f fo rc e b u t als o a ll th e fa c ts a n d c irc u m sta n c e s s u rro u n d in g a n d lea d in g u p to it.
Fact or s t o cons i deri n deci di ng w het her t her e w er e r eas onabl e gr ounds fort he D ef

endantt o feardeath ors er i ous bodil y inj ur y f r om t he al l eged vi ct i m s i ncl ude butar e notl i m i t ed t o any pr evi ous t hr eat s of t he al l eged vi ct i m s m ade know n t o t he D ef endant ; t he cha r act erof

t he al l eged vi ct i m s for v i o l e n c e , wh e n k n o wn t o t h e De fe n d a n t ; t h e a n i mo s i t y o f t h e a l l e g e d v i c t i ms fort he D ef

endant , as r evea l ed t o t he D ef endant by t he pr evi ous act s and w or ds of t he al l eged vi ct i m s ; and t he m anneri n w hich the p arti es w er e ar m ed and t heirrel at i ve st rengt hs and si zes. In re v iew in g th e ju ry c h a rg e a s a w h o le, w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e tr ial c o u rt fu lly i ns tr uct ed t he j ur y r egar di ng t he defendant ’ s r eas onabl e bel i ef t hathe us ed nec es s ar y for ce to p ro te c t h im s e lf

. See T enn. C ode. A nn. § 39- 11- 611( b)

. T her efor e, t her e w as no need f or t he j udge t o s uppl em ent t he char ge w i t h an addi t i onal i ns t r uct i on on r eas onabl enes s , and t he trial c o u rt d id n o t e rr b y re fu sin g d e fe n se c o u n se l’s re q u e st to in c lu d e su c h a n in stru c tio n in th e c o u rt ’s re s p o n s e to th e ju ry ’s q u e s tio n . See I nl ow , 5 2 S .W .3 d a t 1 0 7 . T h e d e f e n d a n t is w ith o u t r e lie f

in th is m a tte r. C oncl usi on B a s e d o n th e fo re g o in g re a s o n s , w e a ffir m th e ju d g m e n ts o f t h e tr ia l c o u rt

.

___________________________________ J

. C. M c L I N, J UDGE