Opinion ID: 2572520
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Did the District Court Err in Refusing to Give Tiffany's Requested Jury Instructions on Excusable Homicide and Misfortune or Accident?

Text: The district court refused to give Tiffany's requested instruction on excusable homicide, which provided as follows: The Information charges the defendant with the offense of Involuntary Manslaughter. Involuntary Manslaughter is a form of homicide or the unlawful killing of a human being without justification or excuse. The defendant, Michelle Tiffany, contends as a defense in this case that the killing of the decedent was an excusable homicide. Homicide is excusable when committed by accident or misfortune in doing any lawful act by lawful means, with usual and ordinary caution, and without any unlawful intent. The burden is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the homicide was not excusable. If there is a reasonable doubt whether the homicide was excusable, you must find the defendant not guilty. This instruction is based upon Idaho Code § 18-4012. Tiffany argues that this instruction was supported by testimony from others that she would never have purposefully injured Nathan and her extrajudicial statements that she placed her hand over his nose and mouth to quiet him. Although Tiffany was entitled to have the jury instructed on her theory of the case, an instruction need not be given unless there is supportive evidence for that theory. State v. Varie, 135 Idaho 848, 26 P.3d 31 (2001). The evidence was uncontradicted that Tiffany intentionally placed her hand over Nathan's nose and mouth to cut off his oxygen to the point that he would be rendered unconscious in an attempt to stop his crying. There is no evidence that she did not understand that she was cutting off his supply of oxygen. By Tiffany's statements, Nathan was rendered unconscious the first time she did it, and he then resumed crying after regaining consciousness. She again placed her hand over his nose and mouth and held it there until he turned blue. At that point he was dead. Although she may not have intended to kill Nathan, her intentional smothering him to unconsciousness in that situation, which caused his death, was not an accident or misfortune in doing any lawful act by lawful means, with usual and ordinary caution. The district court did not err in refusing to give that instruction. The district court also refused to give Tiffany's requested instruction based upon Idaho Code § 18-201(3), which provides, All persons are capable of committing crimes, except ... [p]ersons who committed the act or made the omission charged, through misfortune or by accident, when it appears that there was not evil design, intention or culpable negligence. Her requested instruction provided: All persons are capable of committing crimes, except those belonging to the following class: Persons who committed the act or made the omission charged through misfortune or by accident when it appears there was not evil design or intention. As discussed above, there was a lack of evidence supporting an instruction that Tiffany committed the act ... charged through misfortune or by accident. In addition, this requested instruction was not a correct statement of the law because it omitted the reference to culpable negligence. The district court did not err in refusing to give it. Tiffany also raises issues regarding the district court's instructions on the crime of battery. Because her conviction of involuntary manslaughter is based upon the independent ground that she unlawfully killed Nathan in the perpetration of the crime of injury to a child, we need not discuss those issues.