Opinion ID: 1715107
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Requested Instructions on Joint Suicide Pact Defense.

Text: Defendant requested that the trial court instruct the jury that if his killing of Alicia was undertaken in the furtherance of a joint suicide pact that he had entered into with her then he should not be found guilty of the offense charged or any lesser offense included therein. Defendant actually requested three instructions on this claim. These were as follows: Defendant's Proposed Instruction No. 1. The taking of one's own life, that is, suicide, is not an unlawful act or criminal offense. Defendant's Proposed Instruction No. 2. The defendant contends that he and Alicia Hawkins entered into a joint suicide pact. If you find that the defendant and Alicia Hawkins entered into a joint suicide pact and that Alicia Hawkins' death occurred as a result of the joint suicide pact you should find the defendant not guilty. Defendant's Proposed Instruction No. 3. You are to determine whether a joint suicide pact existed between the defendant and Alicia Hawkins at the time of her death. A joint suicide pact is defined as two people who intend to terminate their lives at the same time. There are many factors which you may consider in deciding whether a joint suicide pact existed, for example: 1. Whether it was entered into freely and voluntarily by both parties and not induced by force, duress or deception. 2. Whether both parties genuinely intended to terminate their lives. 3. Whether the method chosen by the parties to carry out their act involved the same potential risks and consequences to each. 4. Whether the act was initiated by both parties simultaneously. The trial court refused to submit any of these requested instructions. We have recognized that, unless proposed instructions reflect accepted principles of law material to the decision in the case on trial, a trial court does not commit error in rejecting a requested instruction. State v. Khouri, 503 N.W.2d 393, 394-95 (Iowa 1993). A substantial number of cases from other jurisdictions hold that one who actually performs or actively assists in performing an overt act resulting in the death of another person is guilty of homicide, irrespective of the victim's desire to die. E.g., People v. Matlock, 51 Cal.2d 682, 336 P.2d 505, 511 (1959) (defendant strangled victim at victim's request); People v. Cleaves, 229 Cal.App.3d 367, 280 Cal.Rptr. 146, 150-51 (1991) (defendant held victim on bed to ensure self-strangulation continued); Gentry v. State, 625 N.E.2d 1268, 1273 (Ind.App.1993) (defendant suffocated victim after victim's unsuccessful suicide attempt); State v. Cobb, 229 Kan. 522, 625 P.2d 1133, 1136 (1981) (defendant injected victim with lethal dose of cocaine and then shot victim); State v. Fuller, 203 Neb. 233, 278 N.W.2d 756, 758, 761 (1979) (defendant injected air into victim's veins at victim's request); State v. Sexson, 117 N.M. 113, 869 P.2d 301, 304-05 (App.1994) (defendant shot victim); State v. Bouse, 199 Or. 676, 264 P.2d 800, 812 (1953) (defendant drowned wife in bathtub, allegedly at her request), overruled on other grounds by State v. Fischer, 232 Or. 558, 376 P.2d 418, 421 (1962); Turner v. State, 119 Tenn. 663, 108 S.W. 1139, 1141 (1908) (defendant shot victim). We applied similar principles in deciding the issues that were before us in State v. Marti, 290 N.W.2d 570 (Iowa 1980). There, the defendant had loaded a revolver and placed it within reach of his suicidal girlfriend. She picked up the gun and discharged it so as to fatally wound herself. In affirming the defendant's conviction for involuntary manslaughter, we concluded that [t]he criminal is held to answer for his conduct because it constitutes murder or manslaughter, not because it coincidentally helped someone to die who wanted to die anyway. Id. at 581. We conclude that similar concerns dictate that we reject defendant's joint suicide pact defense in the present case. Defendant argues that his own suicidal intent takes this case outside of the generally accepted rule that one who performs an overt act resulting in another's death is criminally responsible. We disagree. Defendant's only authority for the position he now advocates is the decision of the California Supreme Court in In re Joseph G., 34 Cal.3d 429, 194 Cal. Rptr. 163, 667 P.2d 1176 (1983). In that case, the defendant and a companion had agreed to end their lives by driving an automobile off a cliff. Defendant drove the vehicle off the cliff, killing his companion but not himself. The California court held that, because a joint suicide pact was involved, the defendant was guilty of aiding and abetting suicide rather than murder and that this was not a punishable act. We conclude that this decision of the California court may not be reconciled with the general rule involving killing of one who wishes to die. In analyzing the joint suicide pact, we must separately consider the effect of Alicia's desire to die and defendant's desire to die. As previously noted, Alicia's suicidal intent is no defense under a substantial body of authority from other states and our own Marti case. Defendant's suicidal intent is simply irrelevant to the issue of his criminal culpability for killing another person. No basis exists for concluding that his suicidal state of mind prevented him from appreciating the nature of his actions in killing Alicia or from knowing that those actions were wrong. That is the test in this state for successfully presenting a defense to otherwise criminal acts as a result of mental incapacity. State v. Hall, 214 N.W.2d 205, 207 (Iowa 1974); State v. Carstens, 182 N.W.2d 119, 120 (Iowa 1970). Nor does a suicidal state of mind measure up to the requirements of a diminished-capacity defense as to any element of voluntary manslaughter. See State v. Gramenz, 256 Iowa 134, 140, 126 N.W.2d 285, 288 (1964) (permits proof of defendant's mental condition only on the issue of his capacity to form a specific intent in those instances in which the state must prove that intent as an element of the crime). We have considered all issues presented and conclude that the judgment of the district court should be affirmed. AFFIRMED.