Opinion ID: 2571525
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Did the district court err in refusing to give the appellant's profferred self-defense instructions?

Text: [¶ 19] It is difficult to distinguish this issue from the issue just discussed, except that it is directed at the district court's refusal to give the appellant's proposed instructions C, D, and E, all of which are also self-defense instructions. These proposed instructions read as follows: DEFENDANT'S PROPOSED INSTRUCTION NO. C You are instructed that there may be situations that police activities are so provocative and resistance so understandable that it can only be concluded that the police were not engaged in the lawful performance of their official duties and that such conduct by the officer may give rise to [the] right of self-defense. DEFENDANT'S PROPOSED INSTRUCTION NO. D Before a defendant may be convicted of any crime, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense. DEFENDANT'S PROPOSED INSTRUCTION NO. E You are instructed that Defendant's self-defense claim is not precluded merely by the fact that Investigator Davis is a peace officer. In fact Investigator Davis's status as a peace officer is irrelevant to your consideration of the reasonableness of the Defendant's self-defense claim if the Defendant was unaware of Investigator Davis's employment status. [¶ 20] As with proposed instructions A, B, and F, it was not an abuse of discretion for the district court to refuse to give these instructions. There was no evidence to support proposed instruction C. Proposed instruction D is a misstatement of the law because self-defense is not available to an arrestee where the peace officer has not used excessive force; ergo, the State need not disprove the defense in that situation. Proposed instruction E was refused by the district court for the same reasons as the others, as set forth above. While we agree with that conclusion, we will also add that E is not supported by any cited authority, and it is sufficiently confusing that it likely would have confused the jury.