State v. LeBlanc, 4503-III-0
| Decision Date | 24 March 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 4503-III-0,4503-III-0 |
| Citation | 34 Wn.App. 306,660 P.2d 1142 |
| Parties | STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Roland N. LeBLANC, Appellant. |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
Mark E. Vovos, Vovos, Voermans & Ganz, Spokane, for appellant.
Donald C. Brockett, Pros. Atty., Robert P. Kingsley, Deputy Pros. Atty., Spokane, for respondent.
Roland N. LeBlanc appeals his conviction of simple assault alleging certain error in the court's instructions, raised for the first time on appeal by his new counsel.
There was an altercation in a house where one of the witnesses was baby-sitting with some children. The victim was injured as was also the defendant, who pleaded lawful self-defense under RCW 9A.16.020.
No exception was taken to instruction 3 of the court: "An assault is an unlawful and intentional touching or striking of the person or body of another ..." (Italics ours.) Instruction 4 stated it is a defense to the charge of simple assault that force used was lawful as defined in the instruction. Instruction 2 stated that the State has the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the two elements of the crime, an assault and venue. There was no instruction as to who would bear the burden of proof if the defense presented some evidence of self-defense.
Appellant urges under State v. McCullum, 98 Wash.2d 484, 656 P.2d 1064 (1983), there was an affirmative duty on the part of the court to instruct that the State bears the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt the absence of self-defense when there is some evidence of such defense. The quantum required is not such as to raise a reasonable doubt. That court so held and permitted that question to be raised for the first time on appeal.
Prior cases have sustained convictions when that specific instruction was not given but where the court's instructions were such that where some evidence of self-defense was admitted, the defendant was able to argue that the State then had the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt there was not a valid self-defense.
It is not necessary to discuss all the cases in view of the extended review found in McCullum, but in State v. King, 92 Wash.2d 541, 599 P.2d 522 (1979), a murder trial with self-defense in issue, it was held there was no error where the element instruction (No. 20) required the State to prove the killing was not either excusable or justifiable. This enabled the defendant to argue his theory of the burden of proof. Yet, the rule of King was modified in McCullum to conform to the rule of State v. Roberts, 88 Wash.2d 337, 562 P.2d 1259 (1977), requiring the jury to be instructed that the State has the burden to prove absence of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.
To the same effect and result see State v. Burt, 94 Wash.2d 108, 614 P.2d 654 (1980), also modified by McCullum.
Not only was there no instruction on the State's duty in the instant case as to the State's burden of proof when some evidence of self-defense is admitted, but further, unlike King and Burt, there was no reference to self-defense, excuse or justification in the element instruction. A fortiori then, under McCullum, this case must be reversed.
The prosecution relies upon the fact that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Acosta
...we hold that in a second degree assault prosecution the State must disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. LeBlanc, 34 Wash.App. 306, 660 P.2d 1142, rev. denied, 100 Wash.2d 1021 II. JURY INSTRUCTIONS The next issue is whether the trial court erred in failing to inform the......
-
State v. Takacs, 9611-7-I
...properly raised in a second degree assault prosecution. 6 Having so held, we reach the issue of retroactivity. In State v. LeBlanc, 34 Wash.App. 306, 309, 660 P.2d 1142 (1983) (simple assault), the court assumed that McCullum should be applied retroactively because the case was on direct ap......
-
State v. Marshall
...(self defense and defense of others); State v. Miller, 186 Conn. 654, 443 A.2d 906, 909 (1982) (self defense); State v. LeBlanc, 34 Wash.App. 306, 660 P.2d 1142, 1143 (1983) (self defense). To hold otherwise would unconstitutionally relieve the State of its burden of "proving beyond a reaso......
-
Skjonsby, Matter of
...self-defense, and there was no error by not instructing jury that the State had the burden in this pre-McCullum trial); State v. LeBlanc, 34 Wn.App. 306, 660 P.2d 1142, review denied, 100 Wn.2d 1021 (1983) (simple assault conviction reversed; when evidence of self-defense produced, State mu......