State v. Douglas
| Decision Date | 03 August 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. 30984-0-II.,30984-0-II. |
| Citation | 116 P.3d 1012 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Samuel Glen DOUGLAS, Appellant. |
Manek R. Mistry, Jodi R. Backlund, Backlund & Mistry, Olympia, WA, for Appellant.
Brandy Meyer Andersson, Auburn, WA, for Respondent.
¶ 1 Samuel Douglas appeals his conviction for first degree manslaughter, with a firearm enhancement. He argues that the trial court erred by (1) giving a first-aggressor jury instruction, (2) failing to instruct the jury that a first-aggressor's right to self-defense can be revived, and (3) refusing to instruct the jury about justifiable homicide in resistance of a felony. Douglas further argues that his counsel was ineffective and that the prosecutor committed misconduct. He also filed a supplemental brief arguing that the jury instructions were deficient because they did not require a nexus between the defendant, the firearm, and the crime.
¶ 2 In his statement of additional grounds, Douglas asserts additional instances of prosecutorial misconduct and that the trial court erred by (1) allowing rebuttal testimony from witnesses who had been in the courtroom, despite the court's witness-exclusion ruling, (2) allowing the jurors to handle and to test the firearm, (3) failing to give additional jury instructions, (4) improperly sentencing him within the standard range, and (5) pressuring the jury to reach a verdict.
¶ 3 Holding that the trial court erred in giving the "first-aggressor" jury instruction and in refusing to give Douglas's proposed justifiable homicide instruction, we reverse.
¶ 4 Samuel Douglas and his wife Jeanie own a small hunting cabin on two and one half acres of land. Everett Stockton, Douglas's good friend for nearly 20 years, owns the adjoining property. John McMahon lived with the Douglases rent-free temporarily, while he looked for work. He acted as the care-taker for the house and animals during the week while the Douglases stayed in Bothel to conduct business. According to Douglas, McMahon was instructed to sleep in the bunk house, not the cabin. But McMahon was allowed in the cabin to take a shower, to watch television, or to use the stove.
¶ 5 One afternoon, Douglas and Stockton began working on an addition to the house. Douglas, Stockton, Jeanie, and McMahon were all drinking alcohol that day. Later that afternoon, Jeanie ran into the back room and told Douglas that McMahon had thrown something at her. Douglas and Stockton rushed out to find McMahon, but he had left in the rain, with no coat or shoes.
¶ 6 Later that evening, Stockton and McMahon drank more beer at Stockton's house. McMahon told Stockton that he had thrown a ceramic piece at the wood stove in the Douglases' cabin; McMahon also said he was depressed and suicidal. At the end of their chess game, Stockton walked McMahon back to the Douglases' house.
¶ 7 The Douglases were having an argument; Douglas asked Stockton and McMahon not to come into the cabin. McMahon, who was "rather drunk," pushed past Stockton, who remained standing in the doorway, and entered the cabin. McMahon went to the refrigerator, grabbed another beer, walked over to Douglas who was seated on the futon, and began yelling at Douglas about being inconsiderate, selfish, and self-centered. Douglas feared that if he got up off the bed, McMahon, who weighed almost 100 pounds more than Douglas, would knock him back down. Douglas told McMahon to "get the f* * * out of my house."1 But McMahon continued the "verbal abuse" for approximately 15 minutes and moved toward Jeanie, screaming at her, too, "at the top of his lungs." Afraid that McMahon was going to get physical with Jeanie, Douglas stood up on the futon between the two of them and repeated, "Get the f* * * out of my house."
¶ 8 Standing near Douglas's loaded shotgun leaning against the wall, McMahon screamed back at Douglas, 2 Douglas moved to place himself between McMahon and the shotgun. McMahon threw liquid at Douglas, getting him wet. Douglas reached behind, grabbed the shotgun, held it low in the carrying position, pointed at McMahon, and again told McMahon to get out. McMahon did not leave. Instead, he advanced toward Douglas, who was confined in a "small" space "right up against the television set and the bed," yelling, 3
¶ 9 Stockton ran over, got between them, facing McMahon, used his left forearm to stop McMahon's advance, and tried to persuade McMahon to go elsewhere to calm down. Douglas then turned away from McMahon, holding the gun by the upper stock, and started to put the gun down. Stockton made eye contact with McMahon, who nodded, leading Stockton to believe that McMahon had calmed down and that the two of them were going to leave. Stockton turned to lead McMahon out of the room.
¶ 10 McMahon then screamed, "Shoot me,"4 and charged toward Douglas. Caught off-guard, Douglas swung back to face McMahon. The shotgun, which was still in his hand, went off. Douglas did not recall removing the safety, denied having pulled the trigger, and claimed it had discharged accidentally. There was no evidence to the contrary.
¶ 11 McMahon fell. Stockton tried to administer first aid while the Douglases called 911.
¶ 12 State Patrol Trooper Grant Giacomazzi and Lewis County Sheriff's Deputies Withey, Stull, and Michaels responded to the 911 dispatch. Shortly after they arrived, they pronounced McMahon dead.
¶ 13 Trooper Giacomazzi detained Douglas, who smelled of and appeared to be affected by alcohol. When Giacomazzi noticed that Stockton and Jeanie also smelled like alcohol, they admitted that everyone had been drinking that night.
¶ 14 Deputy Withey interviewed Douglas and recorded his statement. Douglas told Withey that McMahon had been yelling, throwing things around the room, and kicking some furniture. Douglas admitted that his gun discharged, but he claimed it was accidental. He was shocked to learn that McMahon had died. Officers took Douglas back inside the house, and he walked them through what had happened.
¶ 15 The State charged Douglas with second degree felony murder "and/or in the alternative" first degree manslaughter. The trial court entered findings of fact and conclusions of law, set aside the jury's guilty verdict, and granted Douglas's motion for a new trial, based on ineffective assistance of counsel.
¶ 16 The State filed a third amended information, charging Douglas with (1) second degree felony murder5 predicated on the underlying felony second degree assault, Count I; (2) second degree murder with intent to cause death without premeditation;6 and (3) first degree manslaughter,7 recklessly causing McMahon's death. The State charged a firearm enhancement on each count. The trial court dismissed the two counts of second degree murder. The court dismissed Count I based on Andress8 and Count II under the mandatory joinder rule.9
¶ 17 The case proceeded to trial on first degree manslaughter, with the firearm enhancement. Douglas's testimony was generally the same as his previous testimony. Douglas further testified that he has handled firearms since he was 14 years old because his family hunted birds and big game, he has had extensive experience with shotguns, and he received military firearms training where he was taught that "you don't aim a gun at something you don't intend to shoot."10 Defense witness K.M. Sweeney, a forensic scientist, testified that if a firearm is cocked, loaded, the safety is off, and a person has his finger on the trigger and then moves rapidly, the weight of that movement against the trigger finger can cause the gun to discharge.
¶ 18 The trial court rejected Douglas's proposed jury instruction on justifiable homicide because it believed the evidence did not support that McMahon had committed residential burglary. Instead, over Douglas's objection, the trial court gave the State's requested "first-aggressor" instruction.
¶ 19 The jury convicted Douglas of first degree manslaughter, while possessing a firearm. The trial court sentenced Douglas, within the standard range, to 12 years confinement.
¶ 20 Douglas appeals.11
¶ 21 Generally, we review a trial court's choice of jury instructions for abuse of discretion.12 A trial court may give jury instructions only when there is substantial evidence to support them.13 In evaluating whether the evidence is substantial enough to support a defendant's proposed instruction, the trial court must interpret it most strongly in his favor and must not weigh the proof, which is an exclusive jury function.14
¶ 22 We review de novo a trial court's refusal to give an instruction based on an issue of law.15 Jury instructions are "sufficient when they allow counsel to argue their theory of the case, are not misleading, and when read as a whole properly inform the trier of fact of the applicable law."16 We hold as a matter of law that the trial court erred in giving and refusing certain instructions.
¶ 23 The defendant bears the initial burden of producing some evidence that his actions occurred in circumstances amounting to self-defense, such as a reasonable apprehension of great bodily harm and imminent danger to himself or to another.17 The defendant need not, however, show actual danger. Rather, it is sufficient that the defendant reasonably believed that he, or another, was in danger of imminent harm.18 In making this determination, the jury must assess the self-defense evidence from the perspective of a reasonably prudent person standing in the defendant's shoes, knowing all the defendant knows and seeing all the defendant sees.19
¶ 24 Nonetheles...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Gamble
...second degree felony murder based on assault. Although he claims that he is similarly situated to the defendants in State v. Douglas, 128 Wash.App. 555, 116 P.3d 1012 (2005) and State v. Hughes, 118 Wash.App. 713, 77 P.3d 681 (2003), the Court of Appeals properly held that he has not shown ......
-
State v. Cardenas-Flores
...case, are not misleading, and when read as a whole properly inform the trier of fact of the applicable law.’ ” State v. Douglas , 128 Wash.App. 555, 562, 116 P.3d 1012 (2005) (quoting Bodin v. City of Stanwood , 130 Wash.2d 726, 732, 927 P.2d 240 (1996) ). Here, the trial court instructed t......
-
State v. Hathaway
...instruction. ¶ 19 In general, we review a trial court's choice of jury instructions for an abuse of discretion. State v. Douglas, 128 Wash.App. 555, 561, 116 P.3d 1012 (2005).8 Jury instructions are sufficient if substantial evidence supports them, they allow the parties to argue their theo......
-
State v. Keend
...the case, are not misleading, and when read as a whole properly inform the trier of fact of the applicable law.'" State v. Douglas, 128 Wash.App. 555, 562, 116 P.3d 1012 (2005) (quoting Bodin v. City of Stanwood, 130 Wash.2d 726, 732, 927 P.2d 240 (1996)). We review challenged jury instruct......