Source: http://academy.lawofselfdefense.com/law_case/state-v-hendrix-218-p-3d-40-ks-supreme-court-2009-2/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 03:50:28+00:00

Document:
The Court of Appeals held that Hendrix was not entitled to a self-defense instruction as a matter of law because no physical force was actually used. State v. Hendrix,No. 97,323, 2008 WL 4291446, unpublished opinion filed September 19, 2008. The panel cited the statute and the standard jury instruction on self-defense: K.S.A. 21-3211 (Furse 1995) and PIK Crim.3d 54.17. Accordingly, its rationale eliminated the need to consider the trial court’s determination of insufficient evidence of Hendrix’s reasonable belief that his conduct was necessary to defend himself against the threat of imminent force.
We begin by acknowledging that the fundamental rule to which all other rules are subordinate is that the intent of the legislature governs if that intent can be ascertained. Steffes v. City of Lawrence, 284 Kan. 380, Syl. ¶ 2, 160 P.3d 843 (2007). The intent of the legislature is to be derived in the first place from the words used. Griffin v. Suzuki Motor Corp., 280 Kan. 447, 460, 124 P.3d 57 (2005). In determining whether a statute is open to construction or in construing a statute, ordinary words are to be given their ordinary meaning and courts are not justified in disregarding the unambiguous language. Perry v. Board of Franklin County Comm’rs, 281 Kan. 801, Syl. ¶ 8, 132 P.3d 1279 (2006); see Schmidtlien Electric, Inc. v. Greathouse, 278 Kan. 810, 822, 104 P.3d 378 (2005).
“When language is plain and unambiguous, there is no need to resort to statutory construction. An appellate court merely interprets the language as it appears; it is not free to speculate and cannot read into the statute language not readily found there.”Steffes, 284 Kan. 380, Syl. ¶ 2, 160 P.3d 843.
Even if the statutory language were somehow ambiguous and we looked to canons of construction to assist in determining the meaning of “use of force,” we note that the legislature has been clear in other contexts to distinguish between the actual use of force and diluted variations. For example, the legislature has explicitly defined robbery as the taking of property from the person or presence of another either “byforce or by threat of bodily harm” to any person. (Emphasis added.) K.S.A. 21-3426. The legislature has made the same type of explicit distinctions in the crime of kidnapping. It defines kidnapping as a taking or confining of another person “accomplished by force, threat or deception.” (Emphasis added.) K.S.A. 21-3420.
Hendrix’s take on the statutes would make the language of clear distinction superfluous. In short, there would be no need for the legislature to discern, on the one hand, “threats” or implied force from actual “force” and “use of force” on the other. See Hawley v. Kansas Department of Agriculture, 281 Kan. 603, Syl. ¶ 9, 132 P.3d 870 (2006) (there is a presumption that the legislature does not intend to enact useless or meaningless legislation).
Hendrix primarily argues policy considerations. Among other things, he points out the alleged absurdity in denying self-defense to a defendant (purportedly like himself) who can defuse a violent situation with the mere threat of force, but then in grantingthe defense to one who instead chooses to actually apply force. He argues the statute—or at least our interpretation of it—promotes violence because defendants wanting to ensure their entitlement to the defense will use actual force instead of words.
We agree with the worthy goal of promoting de-escalation, e.g., defusing a violent episode with some well chosen words. However, policy making is the province of the legislature. See Bland v. Scott, 279 Kan. 962, 966, 112 P.3d 941 (2005)(“`declaration of public policy is normally the function of the legislative branch of government'”); see also State v. Prine, 287 Kan. 713, 737, 200 P.3d 1 (2009) (“Of course, the legislature, rather than this court, is the body charged with study, consideration, and adoption of any statutory change that might make [the statute] more workable.”). It alone must decide whether to pursue this goal in the self-defense statute. Consequently, it alone must decide to make the explicit distinctions there as it has in the other statutory enactments mentioned earlier.
Under Kansas law, “[a] person is justified in the use of force against an aggressor when and to the extent it appears to him and he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to defend himself or another against such aggressor’s imminent use of unlawful force.” K.S.A. 21-3211(a) (Furse 1995); accord State v. Shortey, 256 Kan. 166, 173, 884 P.2d 426 (1994). The majority determines that the plain language “use of force” means only the exertion of physical force. Because I find the language of K.S.A. 21-3211 (Furse 1995) to be ambiguous and because I conclude that the legislature reasonably intended to incorporate both physical and constructive force within the self-defense statute, I cannot join in the majority opinion and must dissent.
It is a cardinal principle of statutory interpretation that a statute should not be read to add language that is not found in its text. State v. Bryan, 281 Kan. 157, 159, 130 P.3d 85 (2006). Absent a definition of the terms “use” and “force” in K.S.A. 21-3211 (Furse 1995), we are left with the task of ascertaining the intent of the legislature in its including those undefined terms in the statute. In order to reach the majority’s conclusion that it may resolve the question before us under the statute’s plain language, one must first assume that the legislature intended to exclude constructive force to limit “force” to “physical force” only. The same is true if one limits “use” to describe only the “exertion of physical force.” Contrary to the majority’s conclusion, the language used in K.S.A. 21-3211 (Furse 1995) is not necessarily clear and, without some assumptions on the part of the reader, does not exclude constructive force from the ambit of self-defense.
The cases decided by the states employing the Model Penal Code definition are consistent with this interpretation. For example, in Com. v. Rittle, 285 Pa.Super. 522, 428 A.2d 168 (1981), the Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed and remanded an assault conviction for a new trial because the trial court failed to provide a self-defense instruction. In Rittle, the victim, who was much larger then the allegedly sickly defendant, approached the defendant’s car and threatened to beat up the defendant. The defendant reached into his back seat, produced a gun, and pointed it at the victim; the victim walked away. No shots were fired. The trial court refused to charge the jury on self-defense and the defendant was found guilty of simple assault. On appeal, however, the court held that the jury could have concluded that the victim was the initial aggressor who attempted to place the defendant in fear of imminent serious bodily injury and such could amount to simple assault. Therefore, the defendant was entitled to an instruction on the use of self-defense. 285 Pa.Super. at 525-26, 428 A.2d 168.
It is true that K.S.A. 21-3211 (Furse 1995) is not identical to the Model Penal Code’s self-defense definition. Instead of stating that “the use of force upon or towardanother person is justifiable” in limited circumstances (as Model Penal Code § 3.04  provides), K.S.A. 21-3211(a) (Furse 1995) states that “[a] person is justified in the use of force against an aggressor” when the other conditions of the statute are met. (Emphasis added.) I do not find this difference to be significant, however. The term “against” encompasses the same behavior that may be directed “upon or toward” another. Thus, it is consistent with the model code and likewise does not exclude from its ambit the use of constructive force in self-defense.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 3