Opinion ID: 1158507
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Jury Instruction on Use of Deadly Force

Text: Webster argues that the trial court gave improper instructions regarding the use of deadly force, thereby depriving him of his right to due process and a fair trial, in violation of the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and art. 2, §§ 4, 24 of the Arizona Constitution. Arizona permits the use of deadly force as follows: A person is justified in threatening or using deadly physical force against another: 1. If such person would be justified in threatening or using physical force against the other under § 13-404, and 2. When and to the degree a reasonable person would believe that deadly physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly physical force.
when and to the extent a reasonable person would believe that physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful physical force. Deadly force may also be used to protect a third person pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-406: A person is justified in threatening or using physical force or deadly physical force against another to protect a third person if: 1. Under the circumstances as a reasonable person would believe them to be, such person would be justified under § 13-404 or 13-405 in threatening or using physical force or deadly physical force to protect himself against the unlawful physical force or deadly physical force a reasonable person would believe is threatening the third person he seeks to protect; and 2. A reasonable person would believe that such person's intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person. Under A.R.S. §§ 13-404 and -405, apparent deadly force can be met with deadly force, so long as defendant's belief as to apparent deadly force is a reasonable one. An instruction on self-defense is required when a defendant acts under a reasonable belief; actual danger is not required. In Arizona, a self-defense instruction will be given only if the defendant can demonstrate the following three elements: (1) he reasonably believed he was in immediate physical danger; (2) he acted solely because of this belief; and (3) he used no more force than appeared reasonably necessary under the circumstance. State v. Dumaine, 162 Ariz. 392, 404, 783 P.2d 1184, 1196 (1989) (emphasis added). Even the slightest evidence of self-defense mandates an instruction on the issue. Dumaine, 162 Ariz. at 404, 783 P.2d at 1196. Webster objected to the instruction given to the jury regarding deadly force, arguing that he was entitled to an instruction on self-defense and that the instruction given misstated Arizona law. The trial court gave the following instruction: A defendant is justified in threatening or using physical force in self-defense if the following two conditions exist: 1. A reasonable person in the defendant's situation would have believed that physical force was immediately necessary to protect against another's use or attempted use of physical force; and 2. The defendant threatened or used no more physical force than would have appeared necessary to a reasonable person in the defendant's situation. Actual danger is not necessary to justify the threat or use of physical force in self-defense. It is enough if a reasonable person in the defendant's situation would have believed that he was in immediate physical danger. .... A defendant may only use deadly physical force in self-defense to protect himself from another's use or attempted use of deadly physical force. (Emphasis added.) Webster argues that the instruction incorrectly led the jury to believe that actual deadly force rather than reasonably apparent deadly force was necessary to justify deadly force in response. We agree that the jury could easily have interpreted the trial court's instruction that way. Although the initial description of when self-defense is justified correctly reflected the statutory language of A.R.S. § 13-§ 404(A), the later description regarding deadly force was incorrect. It could plausibly be interpreted as a limitation on the entire instruction. By concluding with the statement that [a] defendant may only use deadly physical force ... to protect himself from another's use or attempted use of deadly force (emphasis added), the instruction suggested that reasonably apparent physical force could justify non-deadly physical force by the defendant, but that only actual deadly force could justify defendant's deadly force. Accordingly, we hold that the trial court's instruction regarding justification for deadly force constitutes error. Webster did not claim in his defense that the victim was actually armed or attempting to use deadly force against Webster or Grannis; instead, Webster claimed that he reasonably believed, even if incorrectly, that deadly force was necessary based on the victim's actions. Webster was entitled to have the jury properly consider whether his use of deadly force was justified under A.R.S. § 13-405. The jury could not adequately consider this question without being properly instructed as to the correct standard set forth in § 13-405. See, e.g., Everett v. State, 88 Ariz. 293, 299, 356 P.2d 394, 398 (1960) (reversing conviction for assault with deadly weapon where trial court failed to instruct jury on self-defense). On retrial the trial court should correctly instruct the jury on self-defense.