Opinion ID: 2179259
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: choice of evils defense

Text: Mowell was found guilty of being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of Neb.Rev.Stat. § 28-1206 (Reissue 1995). According to Mowell, the evidence at trial established that Cade had placed him in fear of his life, and under Neb.Rev. Stat. § 28-1407 (Reissue 1995), the jury should have been presented with a choice of evils instruction, whereby they could have found his possession of a firearm necessary, i.e., lawful, under the circumstances. In other words, Mowell argues that § 28-1206 is subject to the choice of evils defense found in § 28-1407. In delineating the scope and applicability of § 28-1407, we have stated the statute reflects the Nebraska Legislature's policy that certain circumstances legally excuse conduct that would otherwise be criminal. State v. Cozzens, 241 Neb. 565, 490 N.W.2d 184 (1992). The defense requires that a defendant (1) acts to avoid a greater harm; (2) reasonably believes that the particular action is necessary to avoid a specific and immediate harm; and (3) reasonably believes that the selected action is the least harmful alternative to avoid the harm, either actual or reasonably believed by the defendant to be certain to occur. State v. Wells, 257 Neb. 332, 598 N.W.2d 30 (1999); Cozzens, supra . Mowell presented such an instruction to the trial court. However, believing State v. Harrington, 236 Neb. 500, 461 N.W.2d 752 (1990), disapproved on other grounds, State v. Woodfork, 239 Neb. 720, 478 N.W.2d 248 (1991), was controlling, the trial court refused to give Mowell's proposed instruction. To establish reversible error from a court's refusal to give a requested instruction, an appellant has the burden to show that (1) the tendered instruction is a correct statement of the law, (2) the tendered instruction is warranted by the evidence, and (3) the appellant was prejudiced by the court's refusal to give the tendered instruction. State v. Brouillette, 265 Neb. 214, 655 N.W.2d 876 (2003). Assuming for argument's sake that Mowell's tendered instruction is a correct statement of the law, we must determine whether a choice of evils defense is applicable to a violation of § 28-1206. Nebraska law explicitly and unequivocally prohibits a felon from being in possession of a firearm. See § 28-1206. Noting that no exceptions appear on the face of the statute, we have held that a felon who possesses a firearm for allegedly self-defense purposes is guilty of violating § 28-1206. Harrington, supra . In Harrington, the defendant was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of § 28-1206(1). At trial, the defendant testified that he carried a firearm because a gang had repeatedly threatened his life. Based on this evidence, the defendant requested that the trial court instruct the jury that the State must prove his possession of the firearm was not for the purpose of security or defense. The court refused to issue the instruction, and we affirmed on appeal. We stated: [Section] 28-1206(1) makes it a crime for a convicted felon to posses a firearm. There is no exception for a convicted felon who believes he may need a firearm for self-defense, and the defendant violated that statute by being in possession of a firearm. His possession of the firearm for allegedly self-defense purposes did not excuse or justify his violation of the statute. Since the statute creates no right for a felon to possess a firearm for self-defense, it was unnecessary to instruct the jury as requested by the defendant. Harrington, 236 Neb. at 502, 461 N.W.2d at 754. We are faced with a slightly different issue in this case because the defendant's proposed instruction in Harrington was not based on a choice of evils defense under § 28-1407. Furthermore, as Mowell notes, some courts have crafted exceptions to their felony possession statutes which allow for variations on the choice of evils defense in very limited circumstances. See, generally, U.S. v. Paolello, 951 F.2d 537 (3d Cir.1991) (recognizing defense where, during bar altercation, defendant knocked gun from attacker's hand to prevent him from shooting defendant's stepson and then picked up gun from floor to prevent attacker from retrieving it); United States v. Panter, 688 F.2d 268 (5th Cir.1982) (recognizing defense where defendant, pinned to floor after being stabbed in abdomen, reached under bar for club and instead retrieved pistol); Vasquez v. State, 830 S.W.2d 948 (Tex.Crim.App.1992) (recognizing defense where defendant presented evidence that he grabbed firearm from kidnappers in attempt to free himself). Without ruling on a limited availability of a choice of evils-type justification defense to the charge of being a felon in possession of a firearm, we conclude that under the facts of this case, Mowell was not entitled to such an instruction. When examining justification or choice of evils defenses, this court has repeatedly stated that the action taken must be necessary to avoid a specific and immediately imminent harm. State v. Cozzens, 241 Neb. 565, 571, 490 N.W.2d 184, 189 (1992). Stated otherwise, generalized and nonimmediate fears are inadequate grounds upon which to justify a violation of law. See State v. Graham, 201 Neb. 659, 271 N.W.2d 456 (1978). See, also, Cozzens, supra . A review of the evidence shows that although Cade and Mowell had a rocky and violent relationship, Mowell was not facing immediate harm when he first obtained the firearm, nor later when he obtained the firearm again, shortly before Cade's death. Mowell stated he originally obtained the firearm a few weeks prior to Cade's death. He stated he obtained the firearm because Cade told him that someone inside of the gang was going to die. However, this statement was so vague that it could not have triggered more than a generalized fear for his safety. Moreover, a few days after obtaining the firearm, Mowell testified that he pointed the firearm at Cade because Cade was demanding meth. The same night, however, Mowell returned the firearm to his friend. Mowell was in possession of the firearm again, 2 days prior to Cade's death. Mowell testified that he reobtained the firearm because Cade believed that Mowell had cheated him in a drug transaction. Mowell testified that his fear was based on Cade's statement that it's not over prior to his leaving Mowell's apartment the night of the drug transaction. However, Cade made no specific and immediate threat to Mowell, and the vague statement, it's not over, is insufficient to establish more than a generalized and nonimmediate fear of harm. The true nature of Mowell's possession of the firearm is aptly demonstrated by examining the day of Cade's death. Mowell testified that on the afternoon of March 18, 2002, he was sitting with the firearm by his side even though he did not think Cade was coming to the apartment. Such circumstances, both leading up to and on March 18, conclusively demonstrate that Mowell's possession of the firearm was without justification under the law. Furthermore, even if Mowell felt threatened and harassed by Cade to a point where he feared for his safety, Mowell had ample opportunity to go to the police, request a restraining order, or stop associating with Cade. See Graham, supra (time to explore other viable alternatives is relevant factor in analyzing justification defense). See, also, U.S. v. Bell, 214 F.3d 1299 (11th Cir.2000); U.S. v. Rice, 214 F.3d 1295 (11th Cir.2000); U.S. v. Lomax, 87 F.3d 959 (8th Cir.1996). There is simply no evidence that shows Mowell was facing a specific and immediate threat when he obtained the firearm; thus, even if we assume that § 28-1206 could modify § 28-1407 under certain limited circumstances, the trial court did not err by refusing to give the instruction in the instant case. Lastly, Mowell argues that the denial of his proposed jury instruction was unconstitutional because it deprived him of his right to defend himself under Neb. Const. art. I, § 1. This argument is without merit. Mowell cannot predicate constitutional error on the failure to give an instruction on a factually inapplicable defense. Moreover, to the extent Mowell argues that the right to bear arms trumps § 28-1206, we have previously found § 28-1206 to be a reasonable, and constitutional, restriction on the right to bear arms. See, State v. Harrington, 236 Neb. 500, 461 N.W.2d 752 (1990), disapproved on other grounds, State v. Woodfork, 239 Neb. 720, 478 N.W.2d 248 (1991); State v. Comeau, 233 Neb. 907, 448 N.W.2d 595 (1989).