Opinion ID: 1499368
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Adequacy of Instruction Regarding Self-Defense

Text: The presiding justice refused defendant's request for an instruction that if an encounter takes place and one is an aggressor and there is a breaking off or a retreat by one of the parties, then the other party can become the aggressor even though the defendant may have been the initial aggressor. Instead, the presiding justice instructed the jury as follows: It is important in considering all of these instructions that you bear in mind the critical time with respect to this encounter, and the critical time we are talking about is the time at which the decedent sustained the wound. So if there was a period where they separated and then came back together again, you must consider these questions dealing with self-defense as of the time of the actual encounter which resulted in the infliction of the wound. Claiming that Cline was the aggressor at the time he sustained the fatal wound, defendant maintains that the jury upon considering the court's instruction would necessarily have applied the law [regarding self-defense] to the entire incident rather than to only the second encounter. We disagree. Although perhaps less clear than the instruction as requested, the presiding justice's charge does expressly mention the brief interlude in the fighting and directs the jury to consider these questions dealing with self-defense as of the time of the actual encounter which resulted in the infliction of the wound. As this court has previously stated, a specific instruction need not be given in the exact language requested provided the substance thereof is adequately covered otherwise. State v. Palumbo, Me., 327 A.2d 613, 616 (1974). We find the presiding justice's instruction sufficient.