Opinion ID: 1302067
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: State v. Fields

Text: Vincent Fields stabbed and killed Scott Holm with a kitchen knife. Fields testified that he had acted in self-defense, stabbing Holm only after Holm pulled out a gun during an argument over stereo speakers that Fields had been in the process of buying from Holm. Fields was thereafter tried in King County Superior Court on a charge of first degree murder and other charges that are not before this court. Fields requested a jury instruction substantially similar to the one disapproved of in LeFaber. The trial court gave WPIC 16.02 verbatim instead. Fields also proposed an instruction that was almost identical to WPIC 16.07 in order to clarify the law on self-defense for jurors. The State objected and the trial court refused to give the instruction, which read: A person is entitled to act on appearances in defending himself, herself, or another, if that person in good faith and on reasonable grounds believe [sic] that he, she, or another is in actual danger of great bodily harm, although it afterwards might develop that the person was mistaken as to the extent of the danger. Actual danger is not necessary for a homicide to be justifiable. CP at 29. Fields had argued in support of this instruction that they might say he was mistaken in his belief that he was in danger, that he wasn't really in any danger, and therefore he overreacted. This instruction is aimed directly at that situation. VRP at 823. Fields was convicted of second degree murder and appealed. [3] The Court of Appeals, Division One, reversed and remanded. State v. Fields, 87 Wash.App. 57, 940 P.2d 665 (1997), review granted by State v. Studd, 134 Wash.2d 1010, 954 P.2d 276 (1998). It held that the instruction given by the trial court allowed the jury to interpret the law as requiring an imminent danger of actual harm in order to accept Fields' self-defense claim. Fields, 87 Wash.App. at 61, 940 P.2d 665 (emphasis added). The Court of Appeals also concluded that although Fields had proposed essentially the same instruction, his proposal to also give WPIC 16.07 would have cured the ambiguity by clarifying that actual danger is not an element of self-defense. Fields, 87 Wash.App. at 63, 940 P.2d 665. It determined, therefore, that Fields did not invite error. The State sought review in this court, which we granted.