AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Defendant was convicted of battery upon a peace officer following an incident where he punched the officer. The altercation occurred near a disturbance involving another inmate, where the officer gave the Defendant verbal directives related to a search. The Defendant responded aggressively and punched the officer, claiming self-defense due to the officer's quick and aggressive approach and the threat of using military training against him (paras 7-8).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred by denying a self-defense instruction to the jury, contending that the officer's conduct could be seen as using excessive force, thus justifying the Defendant's actions (para 4).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Presented evidence that the officer's actions, including verbal directives and the approach towards the Defendant, were within protocol and not excessive under the circumstances. The State argued that the Defendant was not entitled to a self-defense instruction because the force used by the officer was not excessive (paras 7-8).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying the Defendant's request for a self-defense jury instruction based on the argument that the officer used excessive force.

Disposition

• The appeal was denied, and the Defendant’s conviction was affirmed (para 12).

Reasons

• J. Miles Hanisee, Judge, with Jacqueline R. Medina, Judge, and Shammara H. Henderson, Judge, concurring, provided the reasoning for the decision. The Court applied a de novo review to the district court’s rejection of the Defendant’s requested jury instructions, focusing on whether reasonable minds could differ on whether the officer’s use of force was excessive. The Court concluded that, even assuming the officer's approach and gestures constituted force, the Defendant did not present evidence that this force was excessive. The Court referenced the standard that a person is entitled to assert self-defense against a police officer only when the officer is using excessive force. The Court compared the officer's conduct in this case to conduct deemed reasonable in a previous case (State v. Ellis) and found the officer’s actions to be reasonable under the circumstances. Therefore, the Court held that the Defendant was not entitled to a self-defense instruction, and the district court’s determination did not amount to reversible error (paras 4-12).