Opinion ID: 1058342
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: failure to permit argument & instruction on self-defense

Text: During a jury instruction conference prior to closing arguments at the guilt phase, the trial court inquired as to a charge of self-defense. The prosecution objected stating: [I]t has to be raised by the proof. It can't be strictly an argument. There has to be some proof of self-defense, and there is absolutely nothing in this testimony or proof that indicates self-defense, Your Honor. Counsel for the defendant responded: There's evidence of a firearm on the victim, Your Honor, and evidence that it was loaded. I just think that raises enough of an inference for us to argue it. The trial court concluded that there was no proof that the victim had ever pulled his weapon on the defendant and the charge was not provided. To determine whether self-defense is fairly raised by the proof and must be instructed to the jury, a court must, in effect, consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant, including drawing all reasonable inferences flowing from that evidence. State v. Shropshire, 874 S.W.2d 634, 639 (Tenn.Crim.App.1993). A person is justified in using force against another person when he or she reasonably believes (1) that death or serious bodily injury is imminent, and (2) that the force used is immediately necessary to protect against the other person's use or attempted use of unlawful force. Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-11-611(a). On the other hand, a person is not justified in using or threatening force against another if he or she provoked the other person's use or attempted use of unlawful force unless (1) he or she abandons the encounter or clearly communicates to the other the intent to do so, and (2) the other person still persists in using unlawful force. Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-11-611(d)(1)-(2). A defendant who seeks to avoid criminal responsibility for his conduct upon a theory of self-defense must be free from fault in bringing about the necessity of using force or should have clearly abandoned his initial intent to do harm. See State v. Dereke Emont Fitzgerald, No. W2000-01279-CCA-R3-CD, 2000 WL 1671456 (Tenn.Crim.App. at Jackson, Oct. 24, 2000). Even considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant, we cannot conclude that the evidence raised a factual issue as to whether the defendant acted in self-defense. Although several witnesses testified that the victim carried a weapon, there was no evidence that the victim was the aggressor who pulled his gun on the defendant. According to the defendant, the victim tried to pull his gun out only after Thacker had stabbed him. Moreover, Thacker admitted that he stabbed the victim as the victim was facing toward the credit card machine with his back toward him. There is simply no objective basis for us to find that the defendant reasonably believed that he was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury. Accordingly, the refusal to instruct the jury on self-defense was not error.