Opinion ID: 733965
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Defendant's Self-Defense Theory and Evidence of Dangerous Prison Environment

Text: 11 Defendant argues that the district court improperly excluded evidence about the general prison conditions which were relevant to his state-of-mind when he attacked to show he was acting in self-defense. Defendant contends he felt threatened because of the Newman's alleged earlier threats to him and because of his knowledge of the dangers in the Lompoc Penitentiary. 12 The district court instructed the jury about self-defense. 2 It permitted Defendant's testimony and cross-examination about the victim's alleged earlier threats and his alleged flashing of a knife at Defendant. Although the court sustained objections to certain evidence offered to support Defendant's self-defense theory, the court permitted Defendant to explain his encounters with the victim that he claims made him feel threatened. De Groot v. United States, 78 F.2d 244, 245-47 (9th Cir.1935), is distinguishable because in that case the defendant was barred from testifying about prior threats made to him by the victim. Therefore, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it excluded certain evidence regarding the general safety conditions of Lompoc Penitentiary. 13