Court Opinion

ID: 9709260
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 03:43:47.244238+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:47.314570
License: Public Domain

CHEZEM, Presiding Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. The majority correctly states that the decision to give, or not to give, an instruction to the jury is within the sound discretion of the trial court, and that a defendant in a criminal case is entitled to have the jury instructed on any theory of defense which has some foundation in the evidence. Davis v. State (1988), Ind.App., 529 N.E.2d 112; Lock-ridge v. State (1977), 172 Ind. App. 141, 859 N.E.2d 589. However, the majority then proceeds to reverse to require the giving of an instruction for which there was no evi-dentiary basis at trial.
Even Defendant's own testimony does not offer a sound basis for any of the instructions on self-defense. Defendant testified that Manaseo stopped the vehicle without hitting Defendant. Record at 188. Defendant never testified that he feared a second attack, or that he struck Manasco to prevent a second attack.
I.C. 85-41-8-2(a) provides that a person is justified in using reasonable force against another person to protect himself from what he reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. Defendant only alleged a prior use of unlawful force by Manasco. Thus, Defendant did not establish an evidentiary basis for Proposed Instructions 1 or 2.
Defendant also failed to establish an evi-dentiary basis for Proposed Instruction 8.
That instruction sets forth the defense of duress as defined by I.C. 85-41-8-8. Defendant never testified that he was forced, or that his actions were directed under threat of force, to strike Manasco with his portable phone; likewise, there is no evidence in the record which would permit such an inference. Thus, the trial court properly refused Defendant's Proposed Instruction Number 8.
I would affirm the judgment of the trial court in all respects.