Court Opinion

ID: 9527847
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:34:51.838469+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:26:14.977274
License: Public Domain

PARKS, Judge,
dissenting:
I must respectfully dissent to the majority’s resolution of the appellant’s second assignment of error, asserting that the trial court erred in denying appellant’s request for a jury instruction on self-defense.
*551It is established in this State that “a defendant has the right to have a clear and affirmative instruction given to the jury, applicable to his defense, based upon hypothesis that it is true, when such evidence affects a material issue in the case.” Woods v. State, 485 P.2d 486, 488 (Okl.Cr.1971). See also Fleming v. State, 401 P.2d 997 (Okl.Cr.1965). ’“However, this proposition is valid only when such defense finds support in the evidence.” Cantrell v. State, 561 P.2d 973, 976-77 (Okl.Cr.1977). See Gann v. State, 397 P.2d 686 (Okl.Cr.1964).
The appellant presented the testimony of Tony Brooks, who stated that it was Officer Potts who initiated the altercation, thereby presenting a question of fact on this issue requiring the evidence to be. weighed and decided by the jury. Mr. Brooks’ testified as follows:
Q: Okay. And tell us what happened?
A: And Gene was—
Q: Gene — that’s Mr. Snyder.
A: Mr. Snyder.
Q: Okay.
A: Was coming towards the count desk too from the other direction and he was tearing up a piece of paper. And Mr. Potts come up and grabbed him from behind and throwed him up against the count desk—
Q: Who did?
A: Mr. Potts.
(Tr 53)
Q: Okay. How did he do that? Push him” Shoved him?
A: Pushed — shoved him into the count desk.
Q: How hard?
A: Pretty hard. Gene grabbed the— grabbed ahold of his stomach like this and—
Q: Okay, then what happened?
A: Gene started struggling with him— with Mr. — Mr.—yeah, Mr. Potts, then Mr. Guerassio come out from behind the count desk and grabbed ahold of him.
(Tr 54)
In its brief, the State recognized and pointed out the factual “conflict between the State’s case and the defendant’s case” with regard to who initiated the altercation. The trial court refused to instruct on the appellant’s theory of self-defense, which was supported by Brooks’ testimony, and which was a material issue to the charge of assault and battery on a police officer. The instructions given to the jury did not cover this issue. “It is fundamental that the trial court must instruct on all material issues raised and having some support in the evidence.” Perkins v. State, 492 P.2d 383 (Okl.Cr.1971). The trial court refused defense counsel’s request for an instruction on self-defense stating: “The Court’s considered the applicability of self-defense instructions and does not consider those to be applicable in this case because there is no evidence that the police officers initiated the altercation.” (Tr 83) The trial court’s ruling constitutes a clear abuse of discretion in light of Brooks’ testimony that Officer Potts initiated the altercation by shoving the appellant. As I stated in Broaddrick v. State, 706 P.2d 534, 537-38 (Okl.Cr.1985) (Parks, P.J., Specially Concurring):
This [is] clearly contrary to 22 O.S.1981, § 834, which states, in pertinent part, that ‘questions of law are to be decided by the court, and questions of fact are to be decided by the jury....’ Our current approach — the practice of this State since time immemorial — has been to require the trial court to give a theory of defense instruction, if requested, when there is any evidence in the record to support the defense, and even if the evidence is discredited. See White v. State, 458 P.2d 322, 327 (Okl.Cr.1969). See also Finley v. State, 84 Okl.Cr. 309, 181 P.2d 849 (1947) (theory of defense instruction should be given where that position finds ‘possible support in the evidence’). Any heavier standard would usurp the sacred obligation of the jury to be the exclusive trier of fact.
Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.