Opinion ID: 1212862
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Rejected Instruction on Retreat.

Text: Appellant contends that a person does not have to retreat when threatened with death or great bodily harm and cites State v. Grimmett, 33 Nev. 531, 112 P. 273 (1910). That case is distinguishable, as there, this court stated that it was well established that where a person, without voluntarily seeking, provoking, inviting, or willingly engaging in a difficulty of his own free will, is attacked by an assailant, he has the right to stand his ground and need not retreat. Id. at 534, 112 P. at 273. Nevertheless, the problematical nature of this issue is heightened by a realization of the fact that the trial court instructed the jury as to a defendant's responsibility when he voluntarily enters into a mutual combat. [2] Additionally, the jury was read a general self-defense instruction which was, in substance, our self-defense statute. NRS 200.200. [3] Appellant argues that the no-retreat rule is consistent with NRS 200.200 and states that he would not have encountered the decedent had he known he was going to be armed. [4] Wilmeth claims that his proposed instruction made the law on retreat clear and that the evidence did not sufficiently prove a mutual combat. Appellant's rejected instruction stated that a defendant, in a non-mutual combat situation, was not required to retreat if he reasonably believed he was in imminent danger of death. The instruction which was read to the jury said that, for self-defense to be considered, the person killed must have been the assailant or the slayer must have endeavored to decline any further struggle. This substantially embodied appellant's proffered instruction for the purposes of this case. As such, it was not error for the trial court to refuse appellant's proffered instruction. Geary v. State, 91 Nev. 784, 793, 544 P.2d 417, 423 (1975). Here, neither the defense of self-defense nor the no-retreat rule was relevant, and the instructions given improperly benefitted appellant. He cannot now claim error. See id.; cf. Dobbert v. Florida, 432 U.S. 282, 97 S.Ct. 2290, 53 L.Ed.2d 344 (1977) (unsuccessful challenge to death penalty on ex post facto theory; new statute mandating bifurcated trial was procedural and, on the whole, ameliorative).