Court Opinion

ID: 9564185
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 18:55:43.128201+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:16.035758
License: Public Domain

Gunderson, J.,
dissenting:
In the instant case, evidence strongly indicates: (1) that appellant did not contemplate engaging in armed combat with *409the deceased, although appellant admittedly consented to an unarmed physical confrontation; and (2) that later the deceased unexpectedly assaulted appellant with a firearm, thereby commencing an altercation of far different and more dangerous character.
I respectfully submit that, in this context, this court should apply the cardinal principle articulated in Sheriff v. Hanks, 91 Nev. 57, 60, 530 P.2d 1191, 1193 (1975):
As this court long ago said: “Penal statutes should be so clear as to leave no room for doubt as to the intention of the legislature, and where a reasonable doubt does exist as to whether the person charged with a violation of its provisions is within the statute, that doubt must be resolved in favor of the individual.” [Citations omitted.] . . .
I therefore submit that, in regard to any unexpected assault possibly made on appellant — outside and beyond the foreseeable scope of the parties’ agreement to fight — the appellant was entitled to have the jury adequately instructed concerning the law of self-defense.
The trial court did not so instruct the jury, which in my view constituted prejudicial error.