DAVID, Justice.
In this case the defendant alleges that the trial court improperly instructed the jury regarding his claim that he was acting in defense of another. The defendant argues that the Court of Appeals misinterpreted our precedent in this area. Finding that the trial court did not err in its final instructions when it used the existing Indiana Pattern Jury Instruction on defense of another, we affirm the defendant's conviction but remand the case to the trial court to correct an error in the abstract.
Jamar Washington lived with his girlfriend, Dynasty Brown, and their two children, eight-month-old Jc.W. and two-year-old Ja.W., as well as Dynasty's five-year-old child from a prior relationship. On the evening of May 1, 2012, into the early morning of May 2, 2012, Washington went
Brown arrived downtown and found Washington standing outside the night club talking to a woman, Deja Crayton. While holding Jc.W., Brown punched Washington in the eye and then punched Crayton. A fight ensued and a crowd gathered. A woman in the crowd yelled, "Girl, give me your baby!" [Tr. 72.] Brown gave Jc.W. to the woman and then continued to fight with Crayton.
Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Officer Cedric Young attempted to break up the fight between the two women. Officer Young grabbed Brown from behind, picked her up, and put her on the hood of a nearby car. Washington did not know that Brown had handed their baby to a woman in the crowd and so believed Officer Young was harming Jc.W. Washington grabbed Officer Young around the neck and tried to pull him off Brown.
A second officer on the scene, Officer Christopher Faulds, was trying to calm the crowd when he saw Washington jump on Officer Young's back. Three other officers who were present and assisting in crowd control also attempted to come to the aid of Officer Young. Officer Lisa Weilhammer fell during the struggle with Washington and hit her head on the pavement. Officer Geoffrey Barbieri, while trying to prevent Officer Weilhammer from falling, fell to his knees on the pavement. During the melee, Washington kicked Officer Barbieri several times.
The police officers were eventually able to get Washington into handcuffs and he was taken into custody. The State charged him with Class D felony strangulation, three counts of Class D felony resisting law enforcement, three counts of Class D felony battery on a police officer resulting in injury, and one count of Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct. The State later dismissed two of the battery counts.
Washington was subsequently tried by a jury. After the evidence was presented, and over the State's objection, the trial court agreed to give the jury a pattern instruction regarding the defense of another. Washington tendered the following instruction, which largely paralleled the instruction eventually given.
(App. at 101, 131; Tr. 239-40.) But Washington also tendered two additional instructions, both of which were refused by the trial court.
(App. at 102-03.) Washington cited French v. State, 273 Ind. 251, 403 N.E.2d 821 (1980), Franklin v. State, 266 Ind. 540, 364 N.E.2d 1019 (1977), and Drake v. State, 174 Ind.App. 646, 369 N.E.2d 941 (1977) as the basis for his instruction no. 3 and French as the basis for instruction no. 4. The trial court found both instructions were cumulative and unnecessary in light of the instruction it gave.
(App. at 131.) This instruction was based on the Indiana Pattern Jury Instruction for defense of another. See Ind. Pattern Jury Inst. 10.03A (Feb. 2013).
Washington was found guilty of two counts of resisting law enforcement, one count of battery of a law enforcement officer resulting in injury, and one count of disorderly conduct. He was sentenced to an aggregate of 730 days with 90 days served in the Indiana Department of Correction, credit for 23 days served prior to sentencing, and the balance of the sentence to be served in the home detention component of Marion County Community Corrections.
Washington appealed the trial court's refusal to give his tendered jury instructions. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Washington v. State, 973 N.E.2d 91 (Ind. Ct.App.2012). We have granted transfer to address the jury instructions for self-defense and defense of another and the interpretation of Shaw v. State and French v. State.
Instructing a jury is left to the sound discretion of the trial court and we review its decision only for an abuse of discretion. Stringer v. State, 853 N.E.2d 543, 548 (Ind.Ct.App.2006). We undertake a three-part analysis in determining whether a trial court has abused its discretion. Walden v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1182, 1186 (Ind.2008). First, the reviewing court should determine whether the tendered instruction is a correct statement of the law. Id. Second, it "examines the record
The trial court gave only the pattern jury instruction and not Washington's tendered instructions no. 3 and no. 4. Washington claims his additional tendered instructions were necessary to adequately inform the jury that he could successfully claim defense of another, even if he was mistaken about Brown no longer holding their infant son when Officer Young attempted to restrain her.
Central to the resolution of Washington's alleged instructional error are two previous cases decided by this Court: French and Shaw v. State, 534 N.E.2d 745 (Ind.1989). Some confusion seems to exist as to whether Shaw repudiated French, and what the correct statement of the law is regarding the instructions for self-defense and defense of another in light of our precedent.
In French, the defendant claimed self-defense in a murder prosecution. French, 273 Ind. at 253, 403 N.E.2d at 823. The homicide occurred in the parking lot of a bar where the decedent and several other men were drinking in the late afternoon. French testified he approached the men and noticed an eighteen- or nineteen-year-old youth. French was active in youth programs and told the youth he did not belong there. According to French's testimony, the scene escalated between French and the decedent with the crowd forming around them and French attempting to walk away. French testified that the decedent charged him and he backed away with his gun pointed at the decedent. As he backed away, he bumped into a car and the gun accidentally fired, hitting the decedent in the heart leading to his death. French's testimony was diametrically opposed to the testimony of the State's witnesses, who claimed a cold-blooded murder. Nevertheless, French requested and the trial court appropriately determined that the jury instruction on self-defense was warranted. The trial court gave the following instruction:
Id. at 255, 403 N.E.2d at 824. We held this instruction to be inadequate and that reversible error resulted, stating:
Id. at 256, 403 N.E.2d at 825.
We wrote at the time that the instruction that "a person is justified in using [ ] force only if he reasonably believes it to be necessary" required balancing the subjectivity of the defendant's perception of the
In Shaw, we addressed another murder case involving jury instruction challenges, and further delved into the balancing of the defendant's subjective belief against what a reasonable person would believe under the same or similar circumstances. Shaw, 534 N.E.2d at 746. Shaw lived in a trailer with three other women and met the decedent shortly after moving in. The decedent made obscene sexual remarks toward the women and barged into the trailer at other times in various states of intoxication. At a later date, Shaw and her trailer roommates held a party and eventually a quarrel developed between the decedent and partygoers. Shaw retreated to the trailer, grabbed a kitchen knife, went outside and confronted the decedent, stabbing him in the abdomen leading to his death. Over Shaw's objection, the trial court refused the following tendered Final Instructions No. 3, No. 4, and No. 7 regarding the doctrine of self-defense.
(Shaw v. State Appellant's App. at 497-99 (available on microfilm).) In support of these instructions, Shaw cited Shepard v. State, 451 N.E.2d 1118 (Ind.1983), Brown v. State, 255 Ind. 594, 265 N.E.2d 699 (1971), and Gilmore v. State, 229 Ind. 359, 98 N.E.2d 677 (1951). Instead, the trial court gave the following self-defense instructions to the jury:
Shaw, 534 N.E.2d at 747. After reviewing the actual instruction given by the trial court, we stated:
Id.
This is not out of line with what we said nine years prior in French. The defendant is entitled to have the jury consider the facts and circumstances known to the defendant (i.e., his or her subjective belief), but those facts and circumstances must be balanced against what a reasonable person would believe under the same or similar circumstances. Thus, Shaw did not expressly repudiate French. Instead, Shaw elaborated on—and attempted to clarify—French. The Shaw jury was "repeatedly told that the standard to be considered by the jury was the reasonable belief of the defendant." Id. That was a correct statement of the law. In French, the jury was not so instructed. That was error.
The Indiana Pattern Jury Instruction regarding defense of another tracks the language of the self-defense and defense of another statute. See Ind.Code § 35-41-3-2(c) (Supp.2012). We believe that in doing so it is also consistent with our precedent.
In Littler v. State, 871 N.E.2d 276, 279 (Ind.2007), we looked at other states' self-defense statutes. Eighteen-year-old Neal Littler died from a gunshot wound suffered in a fight with his twin brother, Phillip. Id. at 276. We found helpful the words of the Alaska Supreme, where it recognized that self-defense comprises both a subjective and objective component:
Id. at 279 (quoting Weston v. State, 682 P.2d 1119, 1121 (Alaska 1984)). This approach, we noted, was also reflected in State v. Lewis, 245 Conn. 779, 811, 717 A.2d 1140, 1157-58 (1998), State v. Augustin, 101 Haw. 127, 132, 63 P.3d 1097, 1102 (2002), State v. Smith, 472 A.2d 948, 950 (Me.1984), State v. Moore, 158 N.J. 292, 309-10, 729 A.2d 1021, 1030 (1999), and People v. Goetz, 68 N.Y.2d 96, 113, 497 N.E.2d 41, 51-52, 506 N.Y.S.2d 18, 28-29 (N.Y.1986). Littler, 871 N.E.2d at 279. So again we emphasized that the phrase "reasonably believes" in the Indiana self-defense statute requires both a subjective belief that force was necessary to prevent serious bodily injury and that a reasonable person under the circumstances would have such an actual belief. Id.
While Littler was not a case focusing on jury instructions, it is helpful in our analysis of the components of a self-defense or defense of another instruction. It emphasizes that "reasonable belief" also includes what a reasonable person would believe if standing in the shoes of the defendant.
Similarly, in another case that did not necessarily look at jury instructions, we discussed the components of the self-defense statute. Hirsch v. State, 697 N.E.2d 37 (Ind.1998). We highlighted the "standpoint of the defendant" language from French, and again emphasized that the language meant the jury should examine circumstances as they appeared to the defendant. But while the defendant's own account is critically relevant, the standard is still the reasonableness of the belief of the defendant. We wrote:
Id. at 42, n. 10. Indiana Pattern Jury Instruction 10.03A provides no less of an expression of that rule, and thus the instruction given in the present case by the trial court was a correct statement of the law.
Here Washington, by way of his two additional instructions, essentially alleges that he can successfully claim defense of another even if he was mistaken about Brown not holding his son when Officer Young attempts to restrain her. This is an incorrect (or at least misleadingly incomplete) statement of the law because, as we pointed out in French, that must be balanced against whether or not Washington was "act[ing] honestly," or stated another way, as a reasonable defendant. French, 273 Ind. at 256, 403 N.E.2d at 825.
Washington's tendered instruction no. 3 would have been superfluous because it contained language similar to the pattern jury instruction that was tendered. Therefore it was properly refused.
And Washington's tendered instruction no. 4 focused solely on his perception of the danger he faced and thus did not constitute a correct statement of the law because it did not include anything about the reasonableness of his perception and belief as to the danger. It was therefore also properly refused.
We affirm the decision of the trial court. Here, the instruction given by the court was a correct statement of law and Washington's tendered instructions were not required. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to give them. We hold that the Indiana Pattern Jury Instruction is a correct statement of the law and continues to serve as the primary guide for our trial judges on this issue. It contains language which compliments the self-defense or defense of another statute regarding the factors as they existed in the mind of the defendant balanced against whether such belief was reasonable. Trial courts continue to have the discretion to augment the pattern instructions whenever they deem appropriate and to refuse any tendered instructions consistent with the requirements of Walden. Their decisions will be reviewed for an abuse of discretion.
However, we remand the case to the trial court to correct the abstract of judgment,
DICKSON, C.J., RUCKER, MASSA, and RUSH, JJ., concur.
