Opinion ID: 170376
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Failure to Instruct on Self-Defense

Text: Abo-Seba argues the district court erred in failing to sua sponte instruct the jury on self-defense because the evidence supported such instruction. He testified the guards entered his cell and beat him without provocation and from that point on, his sole intent was self-protection. He asserts that had the jury credited this testimony, it could have found he acted in self-defense. He further claims he was not required to testify he intended to injure the guards in order to be entitled to a self-defense instruction. Rather, his testimony that he struggled with the guards after they assaulted him was sufficient to justify the instruction. The government argues the court did not err in failing to instruct the jury on self-defense because there was no evidence to support such instruction. It contends Abo-Seba’s subjective belief that the guards were going to assault him upon entering his cell is insufficient to sustain a self-defense claim. Additionally, during his trial testimony, Abo-Seba denied assaulting the officers with a razor or -6- in any other manner. The government asserts,“‘I did not do it’ is an entirely different position from ‘I did it, but I acted in self-defense.’” (Appellee’s Br. at 10.) Therefore, it argues neither the law nor the evidence supported a selfdefense instruction. 4 In general, “a defendant is entitled to an instruction as to any recognized defense for which there exists evidence sufficient for a reasonable jury to find in his favor.” Mathews v. United States, 485 U.S. 58, 63 (1988). This is true even if the defendant seeks instructions on inconsistent defenses: “[A] criminal defendant is entitled to instructions on any defense, including inconsistent ones, that find support in the evidence and the law and failure to so instruct is reversible error.” United States v. Trujillo, 390 F.3d 1267, 1274 (10th Cir. 2004); see also Mathews, 485 U.S. at 63-65 (rejecting government’s claim that defendant was not entitled to an entrapment instruction because it was inconsistent with his 4 Abo-Seba points out the government’s position on appeal contradicts the position it took in the district court. Specifically, in its memorandum in support of an obstruction of justice sentencing adjustment based on Abo-Seba perjuring himself at trial, the government stated: “If [Abo-Seba’s] testimony was accepted by the jury, [it] could have acquitted [him] believing he was acting in selfdefense.” (R. Vol. I, Doc. 98 at 3.) This could potentially be the basis for a judicial estoppel argument. See New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742, 749 (2001) (stating judicial estoppel “generally prevents a party from prevailing in one phase of a case on an argument and then relying on a contradictory argument to prevail in another phase”) (quotations omitted). We need not address it, however, because Abo-Seba has not adequately briefed it. See Utahns for Better Transp. v. United States Dep’t of Transp., 305 F.3d 1152, 1175 (10th Cir. 2002) (“[I]ssues will be deemed waived if they are not adequately briefed. ”). He merely points out the inconsistency; he has not sought estoppel or cited supporting legal authority. -7- denial of liability). The government’s evidence did not support a self-defense instruction. That evidence demonstrated Abo-Seba was the aggressor and his assaultive actions were not taken to defend himself. See 2 W AYNE R. L A F AVE , S UBSTANTIVE C RIM . L AW , § 10.4(e) (2d ed. 2003) (“It is generally said that one who is the aggressor in an encounter with another . . . may not avail himself of the defense of self-defense.”). Specifically, the guards involved in the incident testified that before they took any action toward Abo-Seba to remove the razor from him, other than attempting to calm him and get him to drop the razor, Abo-Seba swung the razor at them. Abo-Seba does not contend the government’s evidence supported a selfdefense instruction. Rather, he relies exclusively on his testimony, as follows. He was born in Iraq but has lived in the United States since 1994. When Simek, Treadway, McIntire and Harris came to his cell without a camera, priest or physician assistant, he knew, based on past experience, they were coming to hurt him and he was scared. He told the guards if they were coming to beat him, he would hurt himself. The guards entered the cell. Specifically, he said: [Abo-Seba:] When they opened the door and entered towards me, I started backing, going back, and trying to cut myself to show them that I’m serious and there was crying, crying because I’m scared. [Defense Attorney:] And what happened after that? [Abo-Seba:] They came to me, all of them, they -- I was hurting -8- cutting myself. I didn’t try to cut any of them and there was backing up so they hold my right hand where the blade was there. Then a flashlight, they start beating me on my head and the baton, they were having a baton, black stick, beating me on my head and on my back and they were hitting me with the fist. They put me on the mattress. They chained me, they handcuffed me and chained my legs and after they took off my clothes they took me to the hospital only with the underwear. [Defense Attorney:] And did you try to cut any of them? [Abo-Seba:] No. [Defense Attorney:] And had they immediately pinned your arm with the knife in it? [Abo-Seba:] I didn’t resist, actually when they hold my hand I didn’t resist. (R. Vol. VII at 80-81.) And, on cross-examination: [Prosecutor:] And it’s your testimony here before the jury that you did not resist when the officers came in? [Abo-Seba:] No, I never resist but I was afraid. [Prosecutor:] . . . And you’re denying that you swung the razor at the officers? [Abo-Seba:] I was scared of them not to hit me. [Prosecutor:] I’m sorry. Let me ask you this. Did you swing the razor at the officers? [Abo-Seba:] No. [Prosecutor:] And did you cut Officer Simek [referring to a picture of Simek’s neck injury] on the neck there under the ear? The question is yes or no, did you cut him? -9- [Abo-Seba:] This is a nail scratch not a razor. [Prosecutor:] So you’re saying you did not cut him? [Abo-Seba:] No. [Prosecutor:] And you didn’t try to cut anybody else, . . . yes or no? Yes or no, did you try to cut anybody else? [Abo-Seba:] No, I did not try. Mr. Simek, he knows that I never tried to do anything wrong for him. (Id. at 87-88.) In determining whether this testimony supported a self-defense instruction, United States v. Goodface, 835 F.2d 1233 (8th Cir. 1987), and United States v. Bowman 720 F.2d 1103 (9th Cir. 1983), are instructive. In Goodface, Goodface was charged with, inter alia, assault with a dangerous weapon based on allegations he threatened and shot an unarmed victim. According to the government’s evidence Goodface emerged from his vehicle with a rifle, pointed it at the victim, approached the victim and threatened to blow the victim’s head off. Goodface testified he never pointed the rifle at the victim but instead the victim grabbed the rifle and tried to take it away. When the victim did so, a struggle ensued and the gun went off. Goodface claimed the district court erred in failing to instruct the jury on self-defense. The Eighth Circuit determined neither the government’s nor Goodface’s evidence supported such instruction and such instruction would be improper “because Goodface denied having taken any -10- defensive action, which might otherwise constitute assault, in fear of his safety.” 835 F.2d at 1235. Similarly, in Bowman, the Ninth Circuit rejected a claim for a self-defense instruction. There, the government alleged the victim was in an outhouse, Bowman forced himself in, pulled the victim out, threatened to take her hostage and put a knife to her throat when she resisted and began to cry for help. Bowman, on the other hand, testified the victim started to scream upon seeing him and he merely placed his arms around her in an attempt to calm her. The Ninth Circuit concluded Bowman’s “theory of self defense is unsupportable absent the admission of any defensive actions taken by him in fear of his safety.” 720 F.2d at 1105. Like the defendants in Goodface and Bowman, Abo-Seba denied taking any defensive actions against the guards in fear of his safety. The court did not err in failing to sua sponte give a self-defense instruction.