Opinion ID: 1767843
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Affirmative Defense Instruction

Text: Yocum next argues that the trial court erred in not giving an affirmative defense jury instruction. The instruction he requested reads as follows: It is a defense to this statute that the defendant used, possessed, made, repaired, sold, or otherwise dealt in any of the above enumerated articles under circumstances negating any likelihood that the weapon could be used unlawfully. This instruction was taken directly from the Criminal Use of Prohibited Weapons statute, which provides that: (b) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that: . . . . . (2) The defendant used, possessed, made repaired, sold, or otherwise dealt in any of the above enumerated articles under circumstances negating any likelihood that the weapon could be used unlawfully. Ark.Code Ann. § 5-73-104(b)(2) (Repl.1993). The law is clear that a party is entitled to an instruction on a defense if there is sufficient evidence to raise a question of fact or if there is any supporting evidence for the instruction. Davis v. State, 293 Ark. 472, 739 S.W.2d 150 (1987). Where the defendant has offered sufficient evidence to raise a question of fact concerning a defense, the instructions must fully and fairly declare the law applicable to that defense; however, there is no error in refusing to give a jury instruction where there is no basis in the evidence to support the giving of the instruction. Purifoy v. State, 307 Ark. 482, 822 S.W.2d 374 (1991). In this instance, Yocum presented no evidence whatsoever to warrant the giving of the requested instruction. He suggests that his statement that all he had was a cigarette lighter and the fact that the object was created from a cigarette lighter was evidence that he believed it to be a novelty item and sufficient to justify the instruction. We do not agree. Further, the original commentary to § 5-73-104 states: Subsection (b)(2) is designed to permit a legitimate collector to possess a prohibited weapon, provided he takes steps such as rendering the weapon inoperable to make criminal use unlikely. See 1988 Supplementary Commentary to Ark.Code Ann. § 5-73-104 (1995 Commentaries) (emphasis added). We cannot say that the trial court's refusal to give this instruction was in error. Affirmed. DUDLEY, J., not participating.