Opinion ID: 1825345
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: assault with intention to commit murder.

Text: Defendant raises numerous objections to the instructions. He also requested his own instructions on almost every material issue. The trial judge rejected them all but gave the substance of most in his own language. We have said a trial court is free to phrase instructions in its own words as long as the instructions given fully and fairly advise the jury of the issues they are to decide and the law which is applicable. State v. Millspaugh, 257 N.W.2d 513, 515 (Iowa 1977). We believe these instructions did that except on the issue of justification. The error there was both serious and prejudicial. It necessitates a reversal and a new trial. Defendant admitted he shot Sederburg. He claimed he was justified. As applicable in this case, justificationor self-defenseis a doctrine of the law permitting one, under certain circumstances, to use force in defending himself. See ch. 704, Iowa Criminal Code. The force used must be reasonable; and force should be resorted to at all only as a last resort. We set out the relevant part of the applicable statute: 704.1 Reasonable force is that force which a reasonable person, in like circumstances, would judge to be necessary to prevent an injury or loss, and no more, except that the use of deadly force against another is reasonable only to resist a like force or threat. Reasonable force, including deadly force, may be used even if an alternative course of action is available if the alternative entails a risk to one's life or safety, . . . . (Emphasis added) The problem in this case arises because of the italicized portion of the statute, which recognizes there may be circumstances when the attempt to take an alternative course of action will pose a serious threat to one's safety. In such a situation a party may use reasonable force, including deadly force, without first taking an available alternative course. See § 704.2(3), Iowa Criminal Code, for definition of deadly force as applicable here. Defendant claimed he was in reasonable fear that Sederburg intended to do him serious injury. He gave detailed testimony of bad blood between them, of several prior assaults by Sederburg, and of Sederburg's threats to kill him. He insisted he was justified in shooting without first taking an alternative course of action. The trial court refused to include this element in the instructions. The relevant portions of the instructions on justification were as follows: You must find the defendant not guilty on grounds of justification unless the state has proved by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt any one of the following elements: 1. . . . 2. An alternative course of action was available as explained in [the following instruction.] 3. . . . 4. . . . 5. . . . The trial court then gave this instruction: With regard to element number 2 (Alternative Course of Action) . . . you are instructed that if a person is confronted with the use of unlawful force against himself, he is required to avoid the confrontation by seeking and using an alternative course of action. Thus, if there is evidence that, as a reasonable person, the defendant could have avoided the use of unlawful force, he must have taken or used the alternative course of action before he is justified in repelling the force used against him. We have, then, these circumstances. The jury could have found defendant used deadly force by discharging his pistol and wounding Sederburg; that he did not first take an available alternative action; and that he is therefore not entitled to the doctrine of justification. But defendant argues he was not obliged to take alternative action because of the exception in the statute which excuses him from doing so if the alternative involved a risk to his life or safety. Defendant's testimony becomes vitally important here and we set it out at length. Q. How long have you known Curtis Sederburg?
Q. And during the time describe that relationship. A. It's always been quarrelsome. Q. Can you explain some of those problems you might have had? A. It started back right after I got to know Curtis in 1963. Q. What happened then? A. We got into a fight up in Red Oak, Iowa. Q. And can you tell me what happened in general on that? A. After it was all over I ended up with a black eye and a fat lip. Q. What was your next relationship? A. Oh, it would be not until 1972. Q. And what was that? A. It was an incident at the Blue Spur Lounge in Shenandoah, Iowa. Q. Can you tell me about that? A. Curtis came down, well, he come down with another guy and Curtis came down and he wanted to fight and he was hollering at me and they stopped him before he could get me; the bouncer to the place did, and asked him to leave and he didn't want to leave so they throwed him out. Q. What was the next occurrence? A. It was later on in 1972. Q. Okay, what was that? A. This was the time when he come down and I was down at the bar, . . . and he come in and I was just getting off my bar stool because I saw him come through the door and he knocked over the bar stool and he got to me and hit me once and I started to go down and he kicked me and tore the cartilage loose on the right side of my chest. Q. Did this disable you? A. Yes. Q. How? A. I couldn't work. It tore all the cartilage loose in my chest so I had to be under doctor's care.