FORECITE National™
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

 VOLUME 11 - CHAPTER 255
Go to Volume 11 Table of Contents  -  Go to Chapter 255 Table of Contents

255.4 Self Defense, Partial Or Imperfect

    255.4.2 Imperfect Self Defense: Right To Instruction

    255.4.2.1 Duty To Instruct On Imperfect Self Defense
    255.4.2.2 Instruction On Partial Or Imperfect Self Defense Warranted If Complete Self Defense Instruction Is Warranted
    255.4.2.3 Imperfect Self Defense: Applicability To Intoxication, Mental Illness Or Delusion
    255.4.2.4 Imperfect Self Defense Based On Childhood Trauma And Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder

FORECITE National™
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

 VOLUME 11 - CHAPTER 255

PRACTICE NOTE: Generally, the court should be obligated to instruct on self defense when warranted by the evidence. (See e.g., State v. Spurgeon (MO 1987) 730 SW2d 595, 596 [if there is substantial evidence putting self defense in issue it is the duty of the trial court to instruct on self defense as a part of the law of the case whether or not the defendant requested the instruction].)

    See also FORECITE National™ 250.1 [Grounds For Instruction On Defense Theory].

    See also FORECITE National™ 250.2 [Evidentiary Requirements For Defense Theory Instruction].

    See also FORECITE National™ 255.4.2.2 [Instruction On Partial Or Imperfect Self Defense Warranted If Complete Self Defense Instruction Is Warranted].

    See also FORECITE National™ 255.4.1.1 [Imperfect Self Defense: Defense Theory To Charge Of Murder].

    See also FORECITE National™ 255.4.1.2 [Imperfect Self Defense As Lesser Included Offense Rather Than Affirmative Defense].

FORECITE National™
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

 VOLUME 11 - CHAPTER 255

PRACTICE NOTE: If the record contains substantial evidence of complete self defense, then there is also substantial evidence of partial or imperfect self defense. (See People v. DeLeon (CA 1992) 10 CA4th 815 [12 CR2d 825].) This is so because self defense requires both an honest and reasonable belief in imminent peril while imperfect self defense requires only an honest belief. If there was substantial evidence of the defendant's "honest belief" for self defense purposes, there must also be substantial evidence of his "honest belief" for imperfect self defense purposes. (DeLeon, 10 CA4th at 824; see also People v. Ceja (CA 1994) 26 CA4th 78, 88-91 [31 CR2d 475] Johnson, J., concurring.)

    In other words, evidence that is sufficient to generate an issue of perfect self defense necessarily generates an issue of imperfect self defense.  (See State v. Faulkner (MD 1984) 483 A2d 759, 770; State v. Nicholson (WI 1988) 435 NW2d 298, 300 ["...reversible error for a trial court to refuse a request to instruct the jury on imperfect self-defense when the evidence warranted instructing the jury on perfect self-defense"]; see also MARYLAND CRIMINAL PATTERN JURY INSTRUCTIONS, MPJI-Cr 4:17.2, comment [Homicide-First Degree Premeditated Murder, Second Degree Specific Intent Murder, And Voluntary Manslaughter (Imperfect Self-Defense)] p. 232 (Micpel, 1999).)

FORECITE National™
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

 VOLUME 11 - CHAPTER 255

RATIONALE: If the defendant honestly believes he or she is acting in self defense it shouldn't matter in terms of criminal culpability whether the belief was the product of intoxication, mental illness and/or delusion.

POINTS AND AUTHORITIES: Because imperfect self defense focuses upon the mental state of the defendant it matters not whether his honest-but-mistaken belief in the necessity to defend was the product of intoxication, delusion or simply mistaken perception. (See People v. Uriarte (CA 1990) 223 CA3d 192, 197 [272 CR 693]; see also In re Christian S. (CA 1994) 7 C4th 768, 781 [30 CR2d 33] [explaining that imperfect self defense doesn't apply in ordinary self defense cases but does in delusional self defense cases]; People v. Cameron (CA 1994) 30 CA4th 591, 601 [36 CR2d 656]; but see State v. Seifert (WI 1990) 454 NW2d 346, 352 ["doctrine of imperfect self defense manslaughter was simply never intended to cover situations such as this one where it is entirely the defendant’s mental disease or defect, not an error in judgment or perception or a negligently-formed prospective of the situation, that motivates the defendant’s actions"]; State v. Ordway (KA 1997) 934 P2d 94, 104 [no imperfect self defense based on psychotic delusion].)

    It has also been suggested that limiting a person's right to invoke honest but delusional self defense may violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.  (See State v. Herrera (UT 1995) 895 P2d 359, 384-85, dissenting opinion.) 

FEDERALIZATION: To federalize this request, click here. [Constitutional Macro 2.3; 4.1].

SAMPLE INSTRUCTION:

    There need not be a reasonable basis for the defendant's belief in the necessity to defend. That belief may be the product of [intoxication], [delusion] [or] [simple mistaken perception].

[See People v. Uriarte (CA 1990) 223 CA3d 192, 197 [272 CR 693].]

FORECITE National™
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

 VOLUME 11 - CHAPTER 255

PRACTICE NOTE: See People v. Contreras DEPUBLISHED (CA 1998) 66 CA4th 842 [78 CR2d 349] [error to refuse evidence of childhood trauma and PTSD offered in support of defendant's imperfect self defense theory].

    See also FORECITE National™ 256.7.3.18 [Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)].

OPINION AVAILABLE: Click here. [Opinion Bank # O-308].