On Point: 5. Defense of self

State v. J.D.V., 2017AP1057, District 3, 2/13/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

J.D.V. (given the pseudonym “Joseph” by the court) was adjudged delinquent for punching Thomas, another juvenile, in the head outside of school. The incident was recorded by Charles, another student, using his electronic device. Based primarily on that recording the trial court rejected Joseph’s self-defense claim—rightly so, says the court of appeals.

State v. Joseph T. Langlois, 2016AP1409-CR, petition for review of a published court of appeals decision granted 12/13/17; case activity (including briefs)

Issues (composed by On Point):

1. Was trial counsel ineffective for failing to object to the jury instructions for self defense and accident on the lesser included charge of homicide by negligent handling of a dangerous weapon?

2. Alternatively, is a new trial in the interest of justice warranted because the erroneous jury instructions on self defense and accident prevented the real controversy from being tried?

3. Did the erroneous instructions on self defense and accident violate due process by relieving the state of the burden to prove every element of the offense?

4. Was the evidence sufficient to support the jury’s verdict of guilty of homicide by negligent handling of a dangerous weapon?

State v. Joseph T. Langlois, 2017 WI App 44, petition for review granted 12/13/17, affirmed, 2018 WI 73; case activity (including briefs)

We all know that an appellate court determines the accuracy of a trial court’s jury instructions by reviewing them as a whole, not in isolation. State v. Pettit, 171 Wis. 2d 627, 637-638, 492 N.W.2d 633 (Ct. App. 1992).  But surely this doesn’t mean that a “whole” that includes incomplete, inaccurate instructions for some charges is fine so long as it includes the correct instructions for other charges. Surely we don’t expect 12 people unfamiliar with the complex law of “self defense” and “accident” to determine which versions of these instructions are correct and whether the same version applies to three distinct charges. This split opinion says “sure we do.” Judge Reilly objects to the majority’s “as long as the correct words are in there somewhere” approach to instructing a jury. Hopefully, SCOW will too.

State v. Robert Joseph Stietz, 2017 WI 58, 6/13/17, reversing a per curiam decision of the court of appeals; case activity (including briefs)

This case breaks no new legal ground, but simply reaffirms some long-standing rules governing when a trial judge should instruct a jury on self-defense: The defendant has only to meet the “low bar” of producing “some evidence” to support the defense; the evidence supporting the instruction should be viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant; and that the trial judge shouldn’t weigh the credibility of the evidence because that’s the job of the jury. (¶¶12-23). Under the specific facts of this case, the trial judge erred in not giving Stietz a self-defense instruction. (¶¶24-60).

State v. Shawn W. Forgue, 2016AP2414-CR, 5/11/17, District 4 (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Forgue, convicted of misdemeanor battery and disorderly conduct, appealed the circuit court’s decision to exclude evidence of the victim’s prior violent conduct toward him (i.e. McMorris evidence) and her other bad acts. He also appealed an order setting restitution at $269.50 for the victim’s lost wages and $1,000 to the Crime Victim Compensation Program.

Review of a per curiam opinion; case activity (including briefs); petition for review

Issues (from Stietz’s petition):

1. On the facts of this case, did the court of appeals deny Stietz’s federal and state constitutional rights to present a complete defense of self-defense, and contradict controlling precedent of this Court in State v. Mendoza, 80 Wis. 2d 122, 258 N.W.2d 260 (1977), by weighing Stietz’s credibility and requiring more than “some evidence,” even if inconsistent, to support a self-defense instruction?

2. On the facts of this case, did the court of appeals deny Stietz’s federal and state constitutional rights to present a defense by forbidding argument that Stietz was defending himself against two men he reasonably believed were armed trespassers?

3. On the facts of this case the court of appeals contradict this Court’s controlling decision in State v. Hobson, 218 Wis. 2d 350, 577 N.W.2d 825 (1998), by foreclosing self-defense against wardens who: (a) the accused did not know were law enforcement officers, on evidence the jury was entitled to credit; (b) were not even claiming to make an arrest, but only were trying to disarm a man without apparent right; and (c) were not acting peaceably in any event, but rather were trying violently to disarm a lawfully armed man?

So far, only one Wisconsin case has interpreted and applied our new Castle Doctrine law–State v. Chew, 2014 WI App 116. Attorneys researching the issue may find a new law review article about this history of this type of legislation helpful.

State v. Phillip Kareen Green, 2015AP1126-CR, 4/26/16, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Green argues that the evidence was insufficient to convict him of first degree reckless homicide because it didn’t prove he acted with utter disregard for human life. He also argues for a new trial in the interest of justice on the grounds that: 1) the jury wasn’t fully instructed about the interaction between self-defense and the utter disregard element; and 2) important facts were not introduced or placed in proper context. The court of appeals rejects Green’s claims in a decision heavy on facts and light on analysis.

State v. Charles L. Chew, 2014 WI App 116; case activity

In its first decision addressing Wisconsin’s recently adopted “castle doctrine,” § 939.48(1m), the court of appeals holds Chew wasn’t entitled to a self-defense jury instruction under the statute because the men Chew shot at were not “in” his “dwelling.”

State v. Langston C. Austin, 2013 WI App 96; case activity

In this important case the court of appeals holds that the pattern jury instruction for self-defense in cases involving reckless or negligent crimes does not properly apprise the jury that the state has the burden to prove the defendant did not act in self-defense.

Austin stabbed two people during a confrontation on a street and was charged with two counts of first-degree recklessly endangering safety with a dangerous weapon.