Blake v. State

Decision Date01 October 2010
Docket NumberCR–09–0376.
PartiesNiquita BLAKEv.STATE of Alabama.
CourtAlabama Court of Criminal Appeals

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

James E. Deshler II, Thomasville, for appellant.Troy King, atty. gen., and Beth Slate Poe, asst. atty. gen., for appellee.WINDOM, Judge.

Niquita Blake appeals her conviction for attempted murder, see § 13A–4–2 and § 13A–6–2, Ala.Code 1975, and her resulting sentence of 20 years in prison. The circuit court split Blake's 20–year sentence and ordered her to serve 4 years in prison followed by 5 years on probation.

The evidence presented at trial established that on March 23, 2008, shortly after a group of children had participated in an Easter egg hunt, Blake and Sharkea Williams got into an argument about how their children had been interacting with one another. During the argument, Blake pulled a pistol from her pocket and shot Williams in the stomach.

The State presented evidence indicating that during the argument, Williams had a knife but did not brandish the knife or attack Blake before being shot. The State also presented evidence indicating that, even if Williams had brandished a knife, Blake could have safely retreated from the argument.

Blake, on the other hand, presented evidence indicating that Williams was the first aggressor. Blake's evidence also indicated that during the argument, Williams threw beer on Blake, hit Blake with a beer can, and then pulled a knife and attempted to slash Blake's neck. According to Blake and other witnesses that testified on her behalf, after Williams missed Blake's neck with the blade of the knife, Blake pulled a pistol from her pocket and shot Williams in the stomach.

After both sides had rested their cases, the circuit court held a jury-charge conference. During the jury-charge conference, Blake objected to the State's proposed jury instruction that stated that a person cannot rely on self-defense unless “there [was] no convenient mode of escape by retreat or declining to combat.” (R. 295.) Specifically, Blake argued that pursuant to § 13A–3–23(b), Ala.Code 1975, a person does not have a duty to retreat and may stand her ground so long as that person is not engaged in an illegal activity and is in a place where she has a right to be located.

In response, the prosecutor argued that § 13A–3–23(b), Ala.Code 1975, was not amended to allow a person to stand one's ground until 2009. The prosecutor further argued that because the altercation from which the charge arose occurred in 2008, the pre-amendment version of the self-defense statute applied. The pre-amendment version of § 13A–3–23(b), Ala.Code 1975, provided that “a person is not justified in using deadly physical force upon another person if it reasonably appears or he knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety [b]y retreating....”

The circuit court agreed with the prosecutor and overruled Blake's objection. Later, during its self-defense jury charge, the circuit court instructed the jury that a defendant is not justified in using deadly physical force upon another person and cannot prevail on the issue of self-defense if it reasonably appears or the defendant knows that she can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating.” (R. 325.)

On appeal, Blake argues and the State concedes that Blake's conviction must be reversed because the circuit court's self-defense jury instruction was erroneous. According to both Blake and the State, § 13A–3–23(b), Ala.Code 1975, was amended in 2006, before the altercation between Blake and Williams occurred, and that the 2006 amendment removed the duty-to-retreat element of self-defense and allows an individual to stand one's ground. Thus, the parties agree that the circuit court erroneously instructed the jury that a person claiming self-defense “is not justified in using deadly physical force upon another person and cannot prevail on the issue of self-defense if it reasonably appears or the defendant knows that she can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating.” This Court agrees.

In Williams v. State, 46 So.3d 970, 971 (Ala.Crim.App.2010), this Court recognized that the amendment to § 13A–3–23(b), Ala.Code 1975, which removed from the defense of self-defense the duty to retreat and which allows an individual to stand one's ground, became effective June 1, 2006. Specifically, the 2006 amendment to § 13A–3–23(b), Ala.Code 1975, provides:

‘A person who [otherwise satisfies the criteria of self-defense] in using physical force, including deadly physical force, and who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and is in any place where he or she has the right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground.’

Williams, 46 So.3d at 971 (quoting § 13A–3–23(b), Ala.Code 1975, as amended). B...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Bohannon v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • 23 de outubro de 2015
    ...knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating." 159 So.3d at 92. In Blake v. State , 61 So.3d 1107 (Ala.Crim.App.2010), this Court found that the circuit court's instructions on self-defense were erroneous because the instruction read that a pe......
  • Skinner v. Bevans
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
    • 21 de dezembro de 2012
    ...2006 amendment to § 13A–2–23(b) had abolished any duty to retreat under the circumstances presented by this case. Citing Blake v. State, 61 So.3d 1107 (Ala.Crim.App.2010), and other decisions by the Court of Criminal Appeals, Skinner insisted that the trial court had erred in charging the j......
  • George v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • 14 de março de 2014
    ...rejected [Keith's] defense of self-defense based on the State's evidence indicating that [ ]he could have retreated.”Blake v. State, 61 So.3d 1107, 1109 (Ala.Crim.App.2010).Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's judgment and remand this case for proceedings consistent with this opinion.A......
  • Ex Parte Michael L. Jones.(in Re State v. Jones)
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • 1 de outubro de 2010
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT