State v. Griffin

• Decision Date: 19 March 2002
• Docket Number: No. 21,958.,21,958.
• Citation: 2002 NMCA 51,132 N.M. 195,46 P.3d 102
• Parties: STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jewel GRIFFIN, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Court of Appeals of New Mexico

46 P.3d 102

132 N.M. 195

2002 NMCA 51

STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.Jewel GRIFFIN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 21,958.

Court of Appeals of New Mexico.

March 19, 2002.

Certiorari Denied May 1, 2002.

Patricia A. Madrid, Attorney General, Anita Carlson, Assistant Attorney General, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellee.

Phyllis H. Subin, Chief Public Defender, Trace L. Rabern, Assistant Appellate Defender, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellant.

Certiorari Denied, No. 27,463, May 1, 2002.

OPINION

FRY, Judge.

{1}DefendantJewel Griffin appeals her conviction for aggravated battery with a deadly weapon.She argues that the trial court did not properly instruct the jury with regard to her self-defense claim.We agree with Defendant, and therefore reverse and remand for a new trial with proper jury instructions.

FACTS

{2}Defendant and Billy Clayton(Victim), attended a small gathering at a private residence where everyone present began drinking in the early afternoon.All of the people at the gathering were either related or had known each other for a long time.In the early evening, Defendant became involved in a verbal altercation with Melissa Campos.The two women were kept from coming to blows by the intervention of the other people present.At some point after this altercation, Defendant armed herself with a kitchen knife.She later testified that she had felt she needed to arm herself against Campos because Campos was known to "pack a gun" and "to try to sneak up and get you from behind," and because a man who was present at the party was known to have intervened on Campos' behalf and had "jumped" one of Defendant's friends only a week earlier.

{3} At approximately nine o'clock in the evening, Defendant and one or more of the other guests were in a back room of the house having a drink and talking about styling Victim's hair.The argument between Defendant and Campos rekindled and Victim intervened.Defendant and Victim began to fight.The fighting was initially verbal, but then it escalated to slapping, pushing, closed-fist blows, and hair pulling.Defendant and Victim ended up on their knees in a mutual headlock.At this point, Defendant stabbed Victim using the kitchen knife with which she had previously armed herself.The blade of the knife went downward into Victim's neck and broke off from the handle.Initially, neither Defendant nor Victim knew he had been stabbed, and they continued fighting.Once the injury became evident, the other people present broke up the fight.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

{4} At trial, defense counsel requested a number of jury instructions relating to Defendant's self-defense claim.The following instructions relevant to Defendant's appeal were given to the jury:

INSTRUCTIONNO. 3

For you to find the defendant guilty of Aggravated Battery With a Deadly Weapon, the State must prove to your satisfaction beyond a reasonable doubt each of the following elements of the crime:

1.The defendant touched or applied force to Billy Clayton by stabbing him in the neck with an instrument or object which, when used as a weapon, could cause death or very serious injury;

2.The defendant intended to injure Billy Clayton; and

3.This happened in New Mexico on or about the 18th day of December, 1999.

JURY INSTRUCTIONNO. 3-A

In addition to the other elements of aggravated battery, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the act was unlawful.

For the act to have been unlawful it must have been done with the intent to intrude upon the bodily integrity or personal safety of the victim.

JURY INSTRUCTIONNO. 5

Evidence has been presented that the defendant acted in self defense.The defendant acted in self defense if:

1.There as an appearance of immediate danger of death or great bodily harm to the defendant as a result of Billy Clayton pushing and striking defendant;

2.The defendant was in fact put in fear of immediate death or great bodily harm and she struck Billy Clayton with a knife because of that fear; and

3.The apparent danger would have caused a reasonable person in the same circumstances to act as the defendant did.

The burden is on the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant did not act in self defense.If you have a reasonable doubt as to whether the Defendant acted in self defense, you must find her not guilty.

The trial court refused the following instruction requested by Defendant:

JURY INSTRUCTIONNO. _____

For you to find the defendant guilty of aggravated battery with a deadly weapon as charged in the Criminal Information, the state must prove to your satisfaction beyond a reasonable doubt each of the following elements of the crime:

1.The defendant touched or applied force to Billy Clayton by striking him with a knife; The defendant intended to injure Billy Clayton;

2.This happened in New Mexico on or about the 18th day of December, 1999.

3.The defendant did not act in self defense.

The trial court accepted all of Defendant's requested instructions except this one.Unlike the court's elements instruction, Defendant's requested instruction required the State to prove as an element of the crime that Defendant did not act in self-defense.After trial, Defendant filed a motion for a new trial, arguing, among other things, that the trial court erred by refusing this instruction.The trial court denied the motion.

DISCUSSION

Preservation

{5}The State argues that Defendant did not preserve her argument regarding the defective jury instructions, and in fact invited any error that she claims occurred.The State contends that Defendant submitted redundant instructions, and in order to preserve error, Defendant should have argued for omission of Instruction 3-A regarding unlawfulness and for inclusion of paragraph 4 of Defendant's requested elements instruction.We disagree.The requirements of preservation are not so technical.The purpose of the preservation requirement is twofold: "(1) that the trial court be alerted to the error so that it is given an opportunity to correct the mistake, and (2) that the opposing party be given a fair opportunity to meet the objection."Harbison v. Johnston,2001-NMCA-051, ¶ 7, 130 N.M. 595, 28 P.3d 1136(citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

{6}The trial court clearly understood what Defendant was arguing.Defendant requested an elements instruction that included as an element the requirement that "[t]he defendant did not act in self defense."Defendant informed the trial court that the UJIs require both this addition to the elements instruction and a separate instruction defining self-defense in all cases where a party raises self-defense as an issue.The court made a well-informed ruling on this question and the State had ample opportunity to respond to Defendant's arguments.

Judge: I think that she is entitled to a self-defense instruction, with the jury to rule on the weight to be given, if any.So I'm going to give the instructions tendered by the defense, except for the 14-322, given, as modified.Because I believe it is covered by other instructions tendered.

....

Defense: The Defendant is going to object to the proposed instructions of the court, in that the court has elected to not submit the Defendant's requested elements instruction under 14-322.It is my understanding the court has denied my right, or my request, to add element number four, which says that the Defendant did not act in self-defense.I think that that is the burden of proof which is a part of the elements of the offense which the State has to prove, and that is required by the UJI, the uniform jury instruction, and were taking into consideration from [UJI 14-]322 and [UJI 14-]5183, that is the self-defense instruction.

Judge: I did not reach that same conclusion.I am noting on your copy, for the court file, but not for submission to the jury, that that instruction has been refused.And I believe that the information you are requesting to go to the jury, [goes] to the jury through other instructions.And your record is complete then.

{7}The State opposed all of Defendant's requested jury instructions, arguing first that there was insufficient evidence to support Defendant's claim of self-defense and second that even if there were sufficient evidence to support a self-defense instruction, the fourth paragraph of Defendant's tendered elements instruction should not be given because it was redundant.

Prosecution: If the court is inclined to give the self-defense instruction, I would submit that adding it as number four to the elements instruction is not necessary, especially in light of the other instructions that the Defendant wants to give...[T]he jury will be adequately instructed elsewhere on self-defense.

Based on the foregoing evidence, we hold that Defendant's argument was preserved and Defendant did not invite error in the jury instructions.

Jury Instructions

{8}"The standard of review we apply to jury instructions depends on whether the issue has been preserved.If the error has been preserved we review the instructions for reversible error.If not, we review for fundamental error."State v. Benally,2001-NMSC-033, ¶ 12, 131 N.M. 258, 34 P.3d 1134(citations omitted).Because Defendant's argument was preserved, we do not limit our review to fundamental error as the State requests.We review the jury instructions to determine whether a reasonable juror would have been confused or misdirected by the instructions.State v. Parish,118 N.M. 39, 42, 878 P.2d 988, 991(1994).Parish holds that "an erroneous instruction cannot be cured by a subsequent correct one," and "instructions must be considered as a whole, and not singly."Id. at 41, 878 P.2d at 990(citations and internal quotation marks omitted)."[I]f an instruction is facially erroneous it presents an incurable problem and mandates reversal."Id.It is reversible error if "a reasonable juror might have" misunderstood a jury instruction.Id. at 42, 878 P.2d at...