Priser v. State, 071719 AKCA, A-12551

• Opinion Judge: HARBISON JUDGE.
• Party Name: HAL WILLIAM PRISER, Appellant, v. STATE OF ALASKA, Appellee.
• Attorney: Kevin Higgins, Law Office of Kevin Higgins, under contract with the Public Defender Agency, and Quinlan Steiner, Public Defender, Anchorage, for the Appellant. Terisia K. Chleborad, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Criminal Appeals, Anchorage, and Jahna Lindemuth, Attorney General, Juneau, f...
• Judge Panel: Before: Allard, Chief Judge, Harbison, Judge, and Coats, Senior Judge.
• Case Date: July 17, 2019
• Court: Alaska Court of Appeals

HAL WILLIAM PRISER, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF ALASKA, Appellee.

No. A-12551

Court of Appeals of Alaska

July 17, 2019

UNPUBLISHED See Alaska Appellate Rule 214(d)

Appeal from the District Court, First Judicial District, Trial Court No. 1CR-15-00281 CR. Craig, David V. George, Judge.

Kevin Higgins, Law Office of Kevin Higgins, under contract with the Public Defender Agency, and Quinlan Steiner, Public Defender, Anchorage, for the Appellant.

Terisia K. Chleborad, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Criminal Appeals, Anchorage, and Jahna Lindemuth, Attorney General, Juneau, for the Appellee.

Before: Allard, Chief Judge, Harbison, Judge, and Coats, Senior Judge. ^[*]

CORRECTED MEMORANDUM OPINION

HARBISON JUDGE.

A jury convicted Hal William Priser of resisting arrest and assault in the fourth degree.¹ Priser's convictions were based on events that occurred when Village Public Safety Officer Zachary West arrested him for violating a protective order. The issue raised by this appeal is whether the district court erred in denying Priser's request for a self-defense instruction. Priser contends that the court should have given an instruction regarding his right to use force against an arresting officer's use of excessive force even though he testified at trial that he did not recall using any force at all against the officer. For the reasons explained in this opinion, we reverse Priser's convictions.

Underlying incident

At trial, Officer West testified that Priser refused to submit to arrest - first, by walking away and refusing to obey West's commands, and then later by physically struggling against West and against bystanders who aided West. West testified that, during the struggle, Priser scratched him, causing minor injuries, attempted to bite and hit him, and may have attempted to pull a knife on him. West said that he had to pepper spray Priser, shock him with a taser, tackle him, and hit him with a baton in order to subdue him.

Priser, for his part, testified that he was patiently waiting to be handcuffed when West struck him and knocked him to the ground. According to Priser, after that the events were a "blur" for him. Priser testified that he had been kicked in the jaw and sustained blows to his head, and he did not remember portions of the events that occurred. Priser denied resisting the officer in any way, although he often equivocated by asserting that he had done nothing "to [his] knowledge."

At one point Priser indicated that he was afraid of West. According to Priser, West "could kill me and call it self-defense. I've seen it done. I mean, Rodney King, for God sakes." In spite of this, Priser asserted that his reaction to this fear was, "to the best of [his] knowledge," to comply with Officer West rather than to struggle with him. Priser also insisted that he had been in constant pain "from the abuse, brutal assault and battery."

At the conclusion of the evidence, Priser's attorney requested a jury instruction regarding his right to defend against excessive use of force by an officer who is effecting an arrest. The district court denied this request, holding that because Priser testified that he did not resist the arrest, he failed to offer some evidence that he subjectively believed he was acting in self-defense.

Whether the trial court was required to give a self-defense instruction

A trial court must give a jury instruction on self-defense when "some evidence" supports that the defendant acted in self-defense.² The court must determine "whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the accused, would permit a rational fact-finder to conclude that a reasonable doubt had been established as to the existence of the defense."³

While the "some evidence" test is not exacting in terms of the amount of evidence needed, the evidence must address all the legal elements of self-defense.^[4] Here, as an initial matter, Priser was required to show that there was evidence both that West used excessive...