COA grants new trial, holds circuit court should have given self-defense jury instruction
State v. Tyler G. Rice, 2023AP2294, 8/4/26, District III (not recommended for publication); case activity
Rice appeals his conviction for disorderly conduct on the basis that the circuit court erroneously denied his motion to instruct the jury on self-defense and defense of others. COA reverses and remands with directions for a new trial.
Rice was charged after an altercation with a neighbor, “Stan” in front of Stan’s house. Rice had gone to confront Stan about his behavior toward children and threatened Stan with what turned out to be an airsoft gun. Stan testified at trial that Rice pulled a pistol and pointed it at him while saying something about leaving kids alone. (¶3). Rice and another defense witness testified that Stan angrily yelled at and threatened to kill Rice, and reached for his waist as if he had a gun before Rice pulled out the airsoft gun he had brought with him. (¶¶6-8). Rice testified that he pointed the airsoft gun toward Stan’s feet “as a deflection to resolve” the situation. (¶8). The circuit court denied Rice’s motion to include the pattern self-defense jury instruction or the pattern defense of others jury instruction and the jury convicted Rice of disorderly conduct.
On appeal, Rice argues that the circuit court erred by failing to provide the jury with these instructions because there was “some evidence” to support self-defense and defense of others. The state contends that the court did not err for two reasons: 1) the evidence introduced at trial did not reasonably suggest that Rice threatened to use force; and 2) there was no evidence that Rice subjectively believed that pointing the airsoft gun at Stan was necessary to terminate an unlawful interference. (¶¶17, 20).
As to the state’s first argument, COA agrees with Rice that he threatened Stan with force when he pulled the airsoft gun from its holstered position, and he didn’t need to point it directly at Stan. He didn’t explicitly testify that he did so to threaten Stan, but the court concludes that that is one reasonable interpretation of the testimony. (¶18). COA also distinguishes this case from Olsen, in which the defendant emphasized that he and his codefendants were peaceful during their demonstration.
Second, the state argues that there was no evidence Rice subjectively believed that pointing the gun at Stan was necessary to terminate an unlawful interference, and because Rice denied pointing the airsoft gun directly at Stan, he actually could not have believed that pointing the gun at Stan was necessary. (¶20). COA again disagrees, for essentially the same reason–one reasonable interpretation of this testimony is that Rice believed removing the airsoft gun from its holstered position—i.e., threatening Stan—was necessary to prevent or terminate Stan’s alleged unlawful interference. (¶21). Thus, Rice met the “some evidence” threshold and the circuit court should have given the self-defense and defense of others instructions.
COA also conducts a harmless error analysis and rejects the state’s argument that the error was harmless because Rice provoked the altercation by committing disorderly conduct before unholstering the airsoft gun, by entering Stan’s property to confront him. The court concludes that a jury could find that either of the two versions of events occurred. In Rice’s version, which was corroborated by another witness, Rice did not state anything aggressive or confrontational to Stan upon walking up to Stan’s porch. The jury may have reasonably believed Rice’s account, and convicted him of disorderly conduct based on his act of removing the airsoft gun instead of his earlier conduct. Because this is unclear, the state cannot meet its burden to prove harmless error. (¶30).
COA therefore reverses Rice’s judgment of conviction and remands with directions for a new trial.