State v. Rupp
| Decision Date | 29 August 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 62194,62194 |
| Citation | 282 N.W.2d 125 |
| Parties | STATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. Jerry Dean RUPP, Appellant. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Richard G. Davidson, of Davidson & Hemphill, Clarinda, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Atty. Gen., Selwyn L. Dallyn, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Gary Gee, County Atty., for appellee.
Considered by LeGRAND, P. J., and REES, HARRIS, ALLBEE, and McGIVERIN, JJ.
This is an appeal from sentences on two guilty verdicts. The cases were tried together under separate counts of the same information. One was a charge of assault with intent to commit murder (§ 707.11, Iowa Criminal Code) and the other was possession of firearms by a felon (§ 724.26, Iowa Criminal Code). We reverse on the former and affirm on the latter.
The events in question started with a drinking party at a tavern known as the Hi-Lo Lodge. An argument ensued between Curtis Sederburg and a third party, Bud Wolf, concerning change for a $10.00 bill in connection with paying off a bet. Defendant became embroiled in the dispute, which continued outside after the parties left the Hi-Lo.
The argument became more and more heated. The record is in dispute as to who was the aggressor. Eventually Sederburg started toward defendant, who produced a .38 caliber revolver and shot him. Defendant fled the scene and was later arrested at his home.
The two charges described above resulted. We discuss them separately, and we deal first with the assault.
I. ASSAULT WITH INTENTION TO COMMIT MURDER.
Defendant raises numerous objections to the instructions. He also requested his own instructions on almost every material issue. The trial judge rejected them all but gave the substance of most in his own language. We have said a trial court is free to phrase instructions in its own words as long as the instructions given fully and fairly advise the jury of the issues they are to decide and the law which is applicable. State v. Millspaugh, 257 N.W.2d 513, 515 (Iowa 1977).
We believe these instructions did that except on the issue of justification. The error there was both serious and prejudicial. It necessitates a reversal and a new trial.
Defendant admitted he shot Sederburg. He claimed he was justified. As applicable in this case, justification or self-defense is a doctrine of the law permitting one, under certain circumstances, to use force in defending himself. See ch. 704, Iowa Criminal Code. The force used must be reasonable; and force should be resorted to at all only as a last resort.
We set out the relevant part of the applicable statute:
704.1 "Reasonable force" is that force which a reasonable person, in like circumstances, would judge to be necessary to prevent an injury or loss, and no more, except that the use of deadly force against another is reasonable only to resist a like force or threat. Reasonable force, including deadly force, may be used even if an alternative course of action is available if the alternative entails a risk to one's life or safety, . . . . (Emphasis added)
The problem in this case arises because of the italicized portion of the statute, which recognizes there may be circumstances when the attempt to take an alternative course of action will pose a serious threat to one's safety. In such a situation a party may use reasonable force, including deadly force, Without first taking an available alternative course. See § 704.2(3), Iowa Criminal Code, for definition of "deadly force" as applicable here.
Defendant claimed he was in reasonable fear that Sederburg intended to do him serious injury. He gave detailed testimony of bad blood between them, of several prior assaults by Sederburg, and of Sederburg's threats to kill him.
He insisted he was justified in shooting without first taking an alternative course of action. The trial court refused to include this element in the instructions.
The relevant portions of the instructions on justification were as follows:
You must find the defendant not guilty on grounds of justification unless the state has proved by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt any one of the following elements:
1. . . .
2. An alternative course of action was available as explained in (the following instruction.)
3. . . .
4. . . .
5. . . .
The trial court then gave this instruction:
With regard to element number 2 (Alternative Course of Action) . . . you are instructed that if a person is confronted with the use of unlawful force against himself, he is required to avoid the confrontation by seeking and using an alternative course of action. Thus, if there is evidence that, as a reasonable person, the defendant could have avoided the use of unlawful force, he must have taken or used the alternative course of action before he is justified in repelling the force used against him.
We have, then, these circumstances. The jury could have found defendant used deadly force by discharging his pistol and wounding Sederburg; that he did not first take an available alternative action; and that he is therefore not entitled to the doctrine of justification.
But defendant argues he was not obliged to take alternative action because of the exception in the statute which excuses him from doing so if the alternative involved a risk to his life or safety.
Defendant's testimony becomes vitally important here and we set it out at length.
Q. How long have you known Curtis Sederburg?
A. Approximately since 1963. That would be 15 years.
Q. And during the time describe that relationship.
A. It's always been quarrelsome.
Q. Can you explain some of those problems you might have had?
A. It started back right after I got to know Curtis in 1963.
Q. What happened then?
A. We got into a fight up in Red Oak, Iowa.
Q. And can you tell me what happened in general on that?
A. After it was all over I ended up with a black eye and a fat lip.
Q. What was your next relationship?
A. Oh, it would be not until 1972.
Q. And what was that?
A. It was an incident at the Blue Spur Lounge in Shenandoah, Iowa.
Q. Can you tell me about that?
A. Curtis came down, well, he come down with another guy and Curtis came down and he wanted to fight and he was hollering at me and they stopped him before he could get me; the bouncer to the place did, and asked him to leave and he didn't want to leave so they throwed him out.
Q. What was the next occurrence?
A. It was later on in 1972.
Q. Okay, what was that?
A. This was the time when he come down and I was down at the bar, . . . and he come in and I was just getting off my bar stool because I saw him come through the door and he knocked over the bar stool and he got to me and hit me once and I started to go down and he kicked me and tore the cartilage loose on the right side of my chest.
Q. Did this disable you?
A. Yes.
Q. How?
A. I couldn't work. It tore all the cartilage loose in my chest so I had to be under doctor's care.
Q. Did any other incidents occur that you can think of?
A. Yeah, there was another time after this that happened at Jim's Lounge in Shenandoah, Iowa.
Q. Did anything unusual occur?
A. He come up to the end of the bar where I was standing up next to the owner of the bar and told me, you know, I wouldn't mind beating your head in. And says, killing you would be fun.
Q. Do you know the general reputation of Curtis Sederburg?
A. Yes.
Q. In the community?
A. I do.
Q. Do you know his general reputation for turbulence, violence, bad temper?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Do you have an opinion (as to his) general reputation for turbulence, bad temper, violence in the community of Shenandoah and quarrelsomeness before the 14th day of February, 1978; yes or no?
A. Yes.
Q. And what is that opinion?
A. It's bad.
Q. Now, in doing this (work as a narcotics agent) where was it necessary for you to frequent?
A. Well, I was required to build cases against known drug pushers and drug sellers.
Q. Did anyone of these people ever find out about your position?
A. Yes, they did.
Q. And what were the results of this; people finding out?
A. Well, there was supposedly a contract put out on me. This is the word that was on the streets and still is.
Q. Did you hear this from anybody in particular?
A. Well, I first heard it from Curt Sederburg.
Q. What did Curtis Sederburg say to you about it?
A. Curtis came and told me . . . . He says, there is a contract out on you and, you know, I might just collect that.
Q. Did he make any threats to you later on, say, with or without a gun?
A. Yes, he did.
Q. Where was that?
A. This was one time me and my little brother went down to the house; going down to drink some beer. It was in the evening and when we walked in the house Curtis was standing out in the kitchen, which was straight through the house, and he reached in this drawer and pulled a gun and he pointed it at me and told me, he says, see how easy it would have been? You would have never got to your gun.
Q. He knew you had a gun?
A. Yes.
Q. Were there any threats made against you through a third party?
A. Yes, there was.
Q. And who was that?
A. My mother.
Q. And what was the nature of that?
A. She came down and told me that Curtis had told her that if he got the chance he was going to take the gun away from me and stick it up me.
Q. How apprehensive were you of Curtis Sederburg? What did you think he might do?
A. Well, it was really hard to say what Curtis would do. I was afraid he might kill me or he could seriously injure me; bodily.
Q. What do you mean by serious injury?
A. He could maim me; break an arm; break a leg. He could beat me senseless.
Q. At any of these times when you had previous fights were you injured seriously?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. At that time were you fearful of your life?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. What type of a fighter is Curtis from your own personal knowledge?
A. Animalistic.
Q. What went through your mind? What did you intend to do to him?
A. I intended to stop him so he couldn't hurt me. I didn't intend...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Robertson v. City and County of Denver
...See, e.g., State v. Comeau, 233 Neb. 907, 448 N.W.2d 595, 598 (1989); Carfield v. State, 649 P.2d 865, 872 (Wyo.1982); State v. Rupp, 282 N.W.2d 125, 130 (Iowa 1979); Bristow v. State, 418 So.2d 927, 930 (Ala.Crim.App.1982); State v. Dees, 100 N.M. 252, 669 P.2d 261, 264 (App.1983).10 Forty......
-
Mosby v. Devine
...67 Ohio St.3d 35, 616 N.E.2d 163, 172 (1993). Accord People v. Blue, 190 Colo. 95, 544 P.2d 385, 390-91 (1975); State v. Rupp, 282 N.W.2d 125, 130 (Iowa 1979); In re Atkinson, 291 N.W.2d 396, 399 (Minn.1980); State v. Angelo, 3 N.J.Misc. 1014, 130 A. 458, 459 (N.J.Sup.1925); State v. Dees, ......
-
Carfield v. State
...519 P.2d 37 (1979); People v. Blue, 190 Colo. 95, 544 P.2d 385 (1975); Carson v. State, 241 Ga. 622, 247 S.E.2d 68 (1978); State v. Rupp, Iowa, 282 N.W.2d 125 (1979); State v. Amos, La., 343 So.2d 166 (1977); and Shepperd v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 586 S.W.2d 500 (1979). We agree with these dec......
-
State ex rel. City of Princeton v. Buckner
...927, 930 (Ala.Crim.App.), cert. denied (Ala.1982); People v. Blue, 190 Colo. 95, 102-03, 544 P.2d 385, 390-91 (1975); State v. Rupp, 282 N.W.2d 125, 130 (Iowa 1979); In re Atkinson, 291 N.W.2d 396, 399 (Minn.1980); State v. Angelo, 3 N.J.Misc. 1014, 1015, 130 A. 458, 459 (1925); State v. De......