Opinion ID: 724615
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Theory of Defense and Self-Defense Instructions

Text: 4 We need not repeat all of the facts relevant to Cantrell's claims because the parties are familiar with them. Cantrell argues that the district court erroneously denied his theory of defense (just cause or excuse) and self-defense instructions, and that these denials prevented him from presenting his theory of defense to the jury. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court's finding that there was an insufficient factual basis to warrant giving the proposed theory of defense and self-defense instructions. United States v. Duran, 59 F.3d 938, 941 (9th Cir.) (clarifying the standard of review for a district court's refusal to give a jury instruction when the existence of the required factual foundation is in dispute), cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 535 (1995). We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding insufficient factual and legal bases for these instructions. 5 Just cause or excuse, which includes self-defense, is an affirmative defense under § 113(c). See Hockenberry v. United States, 422 F.2d 171, 173 (9th Cir.1970). Cantrell was entitled to jury instructions regarding his theory of defense only if the instructions were supported by law and had some foundation in the evidence. Duran, 59 F.2d at 941. Jury instructions regarding just cause or excuse and self-defense therefore were required only if there [was] evidence upon which the jury could rationally sustain the[se] defense[s]. United States v. Jackson, 726 F.2d 1466, 1468 (9th Cir.1984). 6 The district court found that Cantrell's proposed instructions were unwarranted because no rational jury could find that Cantrell had an excuse or just cause to act as he did. The district court explained that, in its view, Cantrell had withdrawn from the fight by walking twenty feet away to his truck, and initiated a new assault by returning and confronting the victim with the knife. The court noted that the victim had not followed Cantrell, and that the victim asked what are you going to do now, stab your cousin when Cantrell confronted the victim with the knife. [A] defendant who provokes an encounter as a result of which he finds it necessary to use force to defend himself, ... cannot claim that he acted in self-defense. 2 Charles E. Torcia, Wharton's Criminal Law § 190 (15th ed. 1994). Although an initial aggressor may be able to regain the defense of self-defense in some instances, id. (initial aggressor may regain defense when he retreats and communicates intent to disengage from conflict), the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the law and the evidence presented in this case could not support a jury finding that Cantrell had regained the defense. We therefore affirm the district court's rejection of Cantrell's theory of defense and self-defense instructions. 7