Opinion ID: 883492
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Did the District Court err in refusing Bruce's proposed jury instruction on justifiable use of force in defense of an occupied structure?

Text: At trial Bruce admitted shooting Jim and Alice, but claimed the shooting was justified in defense of himself and his property. Bruce sought jury instructions on justifiable use of force in defense of a person and justifiable use of force in defense of an occupied structure. The District Court gave the self-defense instruction, but refused to give an instruction on defense of an occupied structure. While settling the instructions, the State argued and the court agreed that defense of an occupied structure is only a defense to an unlawful entry. The court agreed that because Gabby invited Jim and Alice into the Hagens' home, Jim and Alice's entry into the residence was not unlawful. A district court must only instruct the jury on those theories and issues which are supported by evidence presented at trial. State v. Popescu (1989), 237 Mont. 493, 495, 774 P.2d 395, 396. Bruce argues on appeal that the District Court misinterpreted Montana's statute on justifiable use of force in defense of an occupied structure. He claims that the entry need not be actually unlawful; rather, the defendant must reasonably believe that the entry was unlawful based on the appearances presented to him. The defense of justifiable use of force in defense of an occupied structure is set forth at § 45-3-103, MCA, which states: A person is justified in the use of force or threat to use force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's unlawful entry into or attack upon an occupied structure. However, he is justified in the use of force likely to cause death or serious bodily harm only if: (1) the entry is made or attempted in violent, riotous, or tumultuous manner and he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent an assault upon or offer of personal violence to him or another then in the occupied structure; or (2) he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony in the occupied structure. Bruce argues that § 45-3-103, MCA, only requires his reasonable belief that Jim and Alice had unlawfully entered his residence for him to be entitled to an instruction on defense of an occupied structure. We disagree. Section 45-3-103, MCA, states that an individual is justified in using force when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's unlawful entry. (Emphasis added.) This Court has consistently refused to apply the defense of an occupied structure statute in cases in which the initial entry into the structure was in fact lawful. In State v. Sorenson (1980), 190 Mont. 155, 619 P.2d 1185, a bartender shot two bar patrons after an argument. This Court determined that, while the bartender may have wanted the patrons to leave the premises, their initial entrance into the bar was not unlawful. In affirming the trial court's denial of the defendant's proposed jury instruction on defense of an occupied structure, this Court stated: [Section 45-3-103, MCA] is derived from Illinois which has substantially the same statute. [Citation omitted.] Before the statute is applicable, Illinois case law requires that the entry must be unlawful; hence, the defendant may not assert justification where the victims enter upon the premises lawfully but subsequently engages in unlawful conduct for which the occupant of the dwelling seeks to expel the victim. [Citations omitted.] ..... By its terms, this section only applies to efforts of a defendant to prevent or terminate an unlawful entry into occupied premises. It has no application to a lawful entry into premises. [Emphasis added.] Sorenson, 619 P.2d at 1193-94. We have reiterated this position in State v. Beach (1991), 247 Mont. 147, 150, 805 P.2d 564, 566, determining that a defendant was not entitled to a defense of an occupied structure instruction when the entry which precipitated the incident was in fact lawful. We find no merit in Bruce's argument that, even if the entry was in fact lawful, he is entitled to an instruction on defense of an occupied structure if he reasonably believed that the entry was unlawful. As discussed above, this Court has consistently held that to assert the defense of justifiable use of force in defense of an occupied structure, the entry into the structure must in fact be unlawful. We refuse to expand the defense beyond what has previously been recognized. Thus, a defendant may not reasonably mistake a lawful entry for an unlawful entry and avail himself of the defense provided for in § 45-3-103, MCA. Bruce failed to present any evidence establishing that the initial entry by Jim or Alice was unlawful. A review of the record reveals the following facts: Gabby invited Jim and Alice into the Hagen residence. Gabby knocked on the door in an attempt to awaken Bruce. Gabby requested Jim's assistance in knocking on the door. Bruce removed the wooden brace which held the door closed and opened the door. Jim either walked in through the opened door or was pulled into the residence by Bruce. Based on the facts presented at trial, Bruce failed to set forth any set of circumstances under which Jim's or Alice's entry into the Hagen residence could be found to be unlawful. As discussed above, we conclude that an unlawful entry is a prerequisite to asserting the defense of justifiable use of force in defense of an occupied structure. Bruce therefore was not entitled to an instruction on justifiable use of force in defense of an occupied structure.