Opinion ID: 883492
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Defense counsel failed to request a jury instruction on Bruce's right to rely on appearances when asserting the defense of justifiable use of force.

Text: While the defense requested and received an instruction on justifiable use of force, Bruce argues on appeal that his counsel should have requested an additional instruction concerning his right to rely on appearances. Bruce claims that the jury should have been instructed that he had the right to reasonably rely on the appearances presented to him at the time of the incident regardless of the actual danger. He maintains that trial counsel's failure to request such a jury instruction constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel. Jury instructions are generally considered to be within the province of an attorney's trial tactics or strategies. State v. Bradley (1993), 262 Mont. 194, 199, 864 P.2d 787, 790. In reviewing a counsel's performance, we will not second guess a calculated trial tactic. Bradley, 864 P.2d at 790. Further, while each party is entitled to instructions supported by the evidence, jurors need not be instructed on every nuance of an issue. In State v. Graves (1981), 191 Mont. 81, 622 P.2d 203, this Court stated: In examining self-defense instructions this Court has repeatedly stated several principles which govern the review of challenged instructions. The instructions must be viewed as a whole to determine if they have limited the defense from fairly presenting his theory of defense. The District Court need not give repetitious instructions nor instruct on every nuance of a theory of defense. [Emphasis added.] Graves, 622 P.2d at 210. A review of the instructions in the present case reveals that the jury was sufficiently instructed on the defense of justifiable use of force. The following instructions were given to the jury following trial  Instruction No. 19 reads: A person is justified in the use of force or threat to use force when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself against the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or serious bodily harm to himself. Instruction No. 21 reads in part: You are to consider the following requirements of the law in determining whether the use of force claimed by defendant was justified: (1) The defendant must not be the aggressor; (2) The danger of harm to the defendant must be a present one and not made by a person without the present ability to carry out the threat; (3) The force threatened against the defendant must be unlawful; (4) The defendant must actually believe that the danger exists, that is, use of force by him is necessary to avert the danger and that the kind and amount of force which defendant uses is necessary; (5) The defendant's belief, in each of the aspects described, is reasonable even if it is mistaken. You are further advised that even if you determine that use of force by defendant was not justified, the state still has the duty to prove each of the elements of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt. [Emphasis added.] This Court has previously determined that self-defense instructions such as these, which are derived from the statutory language, are sufficient to convey the fact that the defendant may rely on the appearances present at the time of the incident. State v. Reiner (1978), 179 Mont. 239, 251, 587 P.2d 950, 957. We conclude that the jury was sufficiently instructed on the defense of justifiable use of force. We therefore hold that Bruce's defense counsel's performance was not deficient and thus the first prong of the Strickland test has not been satisfied.