Court Opinion

ID: 987508
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-02 22:15:50.560405+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:05:57.084416
License: Public Domain

....,      "
                                                                                   =
                                                                                   '-'-'
                                                                                           U>o
                                                                                           >!~
                                                                                   ::11:   f;i-1
                                                                                   >
                                                                                   ;;>:J   C)~ ""1
                                                                                           ,,
                                                                                           ~1>--
                                                                                           ~-ur
                                                                                           ...,-a
                                                                                           (nrr1rrt
                                                                                   """
                                                                                   :X      ~~ J;-.. CJ
                                                                                           :z:r
                                                                                   -..     C)U>
                                                                                           --106 Wn.2d 176, 191,721 P.2d 902 (1986). The defendant is not

entitled to a self-defense instruction unless there is "'some evidence which tends

to prove that the [defensive act] occurred in circumstances amounting to self-

defense."' State v. Walker, 136 Wn.2d 767, 772, 966 P.2d 883 (1998) (quoting

State v. Janes, 121 Wn.2d 220, 237, 850 P.2d 495 (1993)). The court must view

the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant. State v. Callahan, 87

Wn. App. 925, 933, 943 P.2d 676 (1997). However, "[i]f any one of the elements

of self-defense is not supported by the evidence, the self-defense theory is not

available to a defendant, and the defendant cannot present the theory to a jury."

Walker, 136 Wn.2d at 773 (citing State v. Griffith, 91 Wn.2d 572, 575, 589 P.2d

799 (1979)).

       A valid claim of self-defense requires (1) that the defendant subjectively

feared that he or she was in imminent danger of bodily harm, (2) that this belief

was objectively reasonable, and (3) that the defendant exercised no more force

                                        -5-
No. 67964-3-1/6

than was reasonably necessary. State v. Werner, 170 Wn.2d 333, 337, 241 P.3d

410 (201 0). The defendant may employ no greater force than "what a

reasonably prudent person would find necessary under the conditions as they

appeared to the defendant." State v. Walden, 131 Wn.2d 469, 474, 932 P.2d

1237 (1997). Deadly force-defined as "the intentional application of force

through ... means reasonably likely to cause death or serious physical injury,"

RCW 9A.16.01 0{2)-is justified only when the threat perceived is of death or

great bodily harm. Walden, 131 Wn.2d at 474. Where the evidence

demonstrates that the defendant's use of force under the circumstances is

excessive as a matter of law, the trial court does not err by declining to instruct

the jury on self-defense. Griffith, 91 Wn.2d at 575; State v. Brigham, 52 Wn.

App. 208, 210, 758 P.2d 559 (1988).

        Here, no reasonably prudent person in Briggs's circumstances would find

the use of deadly force in the form of a machete to be necessary to meet the

alleged threat posed by Nelson. 2 Considering the evidence in the light most

favorable to Briggs, Nelson struck Briggs while the two men were arguing in the

living room, and the cut above Briggs's eye was caused by Nelson striking him.

It is undisputed that Briggs then returned to his bedroom, armed himself with the

machete, and, several minutes later, confronted Nelson in the kitchen. There is

also no dispute that Briggs twice struck Nelson with the machete as Nelson

        2
          The trial court's decision not to give a self-defense instruction was based upon the
court's conclusion that there was no evidence tending to indicate that Briggs had a subjective fear
of bodily harm at the time he assaulted Nelson. However, we may affirm on any grounds
supported by the record. State v. Costich, 152 Wn.2d 463, 477, 98 P.3d 795 (2004).

                                               -6-
No. 67964-3-1/7

attempted to escape from the kitchen, opening substantial cuts on Nelson's left

arm and back.

       Given these circumstances, the threat posed by Nelson did not justify the

use of deadly force. As we explained in Brigham, a case in which the defendant

also had been previously struck by the victim,

      [the defendant's] displaying a knife may well have been a
      reasonable response to Bluford's attack. Had the episode ended
      there, a jury could have found Brigham justified in resisting Bluford
      in this way and thus no crime. But when Brigham moved to stab
      Bluford, the character of their encounter changed from an
      altercation between the two men to an assault by Brigham upon
      Bluford. Brigham thrust his knife into Bluford's back eight times;
      this was excessive force as a matter of law under the
      circumstances, and could not be successfully interjected as self-
      defense to Bluford's attack.

52 Wn. App. at 210.

      Here, as in Brigham, when Briggs moved to cut Nelson with the machete,

the character of their encounter changed from a common altercation to an

assault by Briggs upon Nelson. Briggs swung his machete at Nelson twice,

cutting Nelson as he attempted to flee the scene. There was no evidence

adduced from which the jury could determine that Briggs perceived a threat of

death or great bodily harm from Nelson, and accordingly, as in Brigham, Briggs's

use of potentially lethal force was excessive as a matter of law.

      Even when the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to Briggs, no

reasonably prudent person could have determined that Briggs's use of force was

                                       -7-
No. 67964-3-1/8

necessary under the circumstances. Accordingly, as in Brigham, the omission of

a self-defense instruction was not error. 52 Wn. App. at 210.

      Affirmed.

We concur:

                                      - 8-