Opinion ID: 1302067
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: State v. Ameline

Text: William Ameline killed Barbara Hunsaker by beating her with an iron pipe. Ameline argued that he had acted in self-defense, asserting that Hunsaker had demanded money from him and was threatening him with a knife. Ameline admitted that he buried Hunsaker's body in a remote area after attempting to make the killing look like the work of the Green River Killer. Ameline was thereafter charged in Pierce County Superior Court with second degree murder. In response to Ameline's request the trial court gave the jury the following self-defense instruction: It is a defense to a charge of murder that the homicide was justifiable as defined in this instruction. Homicide is justifiable when committed in the lawful defense of the slayer when the slayer reasonably believes that the person slain intends to inflict death or great personal injury and there is imminent danger of such harm being accomplished. The slayer may employ such force and means as a reasonably prudent person would use under the same or similar conditions as they appeared to the slayer at the time of and prior to the incident. The State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the homicide was not justifiable. CP at 72. Ameline argued that it needed to be made clearer to the jury that behaving as a reasonably prudent person he was entitled to defend himself against the apparent threat of injury, even if he was mistaken about the threat. Verbatim Report of Proceedings (VRP) at 493. Consistent with that contention, Ameline requested the following jury instruction: If a person acting as a reasonably prudent person, mistakenly believes himself to be in danger of injury or of an offense being committed against him or his property, he has the right to defend himself by the use of lawful force against that apparent injury or offense even if he is not actually in such danger. CP at 48. The trial court refused to give this instruction. Ameline was convicted of second degree murder and appealed. After first affirming the conviction in an unpublished opinion, the Court of Appeals, Division Two, upon reconsideration, reversed and remanded in an unpublished opinion. State v. Ameline, No. 17339-5-II, 1997 WL 417958 (Wash.Ct.App. July 25, 1997). The Court of Appeals held that because the trial court had rejected Ameline's efforts to clarify the law of self-defense in the jury instructions, he had not invited the instructional error. The State sought review in this court, which we granted.