Opinion ID: 2051955
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Re: Self-Defense, Defense of Others, and Mistake of Fact Instructions.

Text: The trial court also denied Frey's proposed instructions on self-defense, defense of others, and mistake of fact. [A] defendant in a criminal case is entitled to an instruction on his theory of the case if there is evidence to support it and a proper request is made. United States ex. rel Means v. Solem, 646 F.2d 322, 328 (8th Cir.1980). If instructions on self-defense or defense of others are supported by the evidence, they are necessary and it is error not to give them. Huber, 356 N.W.2d at 474. Self-defense and defense of others were central theories relied upon by Frey and he made a proper request for the instructions. The question remaining is whether there is evidence to support these instructions. The evidence certainly does not support giving of the self-defense instruction. Dean Frey himself testified that he had no reason to believe that he was in danger; rather he was concerned for his brother Roland. The evidence thus does not warrant the giving of a self-defense instruction because Frey is not entitled to any better version of the facts than he himself testifies to. See, e.g., Swier v. Norwest Bank, 409 N.W.2d 121 (S.D.1987) (Henderson, J., dissenting); Connelly v. Sherwood, 268 N.W.2d 140 (S.D.1978); accord Swee v. Myrl & Roy's Paving, Inc. 283 N.W.2d 570 (S.D.1979); Drier v. Perfection, Inc., 259 N.W.2d 496 (S.D.1977). Additionally, there is no testimony that Frey was verbally or physically threatened by either of the officers. Frey points to Schmeltzer's reaching for his gun, but this was done only after he saw Frey approaching him with a shotgun. We have stated that conditions brought about by one's own conduct may not be relied upon to invoke the excuse of self-defense. Rich, 417 N.W.2d at 872 citing State v. Means, 276 N.W.2d 699, 701 (S.D.1979). There was insufficient evidence to support an instruction on self-defense. State v. Chamley, 310 N.W.2d 153 (S.D.1981). The testimony does not support Frey's proposed instruction on mistake of fact. He testified that he was able to identify Schmeltzer and Schaefer as law enforcement officers. Even assuming he did not recognize them when he first arrived at the scene, he continued to threaten them and did not voluntarily put down the gun once he ascertained their identity. In fact, the shots were fired after the identification was made. It is bizarre to suggest that there is a mistake of fact question left for the jury. Similarly, the facts do not support giving the defense of others instruction. Frey relies upon SDCL 22-18-4, [9] but the facts do not support application of that statute. The evidence does not support any argument that he or Roland were about to be injured. Further, as stated above, as a matter of law there was no trespass or other unlawful interference with real or personal property to be defended against. Additionally, Frey's conduct, under the circumstances here, certainly was more than sufficient to prevent any claimed offense against either one of them. He knew that Schmeltzer and Schaefer were law enforcement officers and that their intentions were not hostile. Yet, he continued to threaten them with a firearm and even fired the gun. See, e.g., United States v. Heliczer, 373 F.2d 241 (2d Cir.1967), cert. denied 388 U.S. 917, 87 S.Ct. 2133, 18 L.Ed.2d 1359 (1967); State v. Feyereisen, 343 N.W.2d 384 (S.D.1984). Affirmed. WUEST, C.J., and MORGAN, J., concur. SABERS, J., concurs in part and dissents in part. HENDERSON, J., dissents.