Automated Summary
Key Facts
On July 17, 2021, in Hayward, Wisconsin, Jonathon Marshall Hughes stabbed two men outside a bar. Hughes was convicted of two counts of aggravated battery and two counts of first-degree recklessly endangering safety. Hughes appealed, arguing the circuit court erred by denying his request for a self-defense jury instruction. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial.
Issues
- Whether the failure to provide a self-defense jury instruction was harmless error that did not affect the defendant's substantial rights, considering that the jury was deadlocked on one count and the case was close.
- Whether the circuit court properly denied the defendant's request for a self-defense jury instruction based on the evidence presented at trial, including whether some evidence supported that the defendant reasonably believed he was preventing or terminating unlawful interference with his person.
Holdings
The Court of Appeals reversed the circuit court's judgment of conviction and remanded the case for a new trial. The court held that the circuit court erred by denying Hughes' request for a self-defense jury instruction, as there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find that Hughes reasonably believed he was exercising self-defense. The court determined that this error was not harmless and affected Hughes' substantial rights.
Remedies
The Court of Appeals reversed the circuit court's judgment of conviction and remanded the case to the circuit court for a new trial
Legal Principles
To receive a self-defense jury instruction, the defendant must present 'some evidence' that he or she acted in self-defense. This requirement is a 'low bar,' which may be satisfied by evidence that is 'weak, insufficient, inconsistent, or of doubtful credibility.' Whether there are sufficient facts to warrant the circuit court's instructing the jury on self-defense is a question of law that this court decides independently. A jury must be instructed on self-defense when a reasonable jury could find that a prudent person in the position of the defendant under the circumstances existing at the time of the incident could believe that he or she was exercising the privilege of self-defense. Circuit courts must not weigh the evidence; rather, the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant. The test is merely on whether a jury could conclude the defendant acted in self-defense, not that the jury would or should reach that conclusion.
Precedent Name
- State v. Johnson
- State v. Austin
- State v. Pettit
- State v. Stietz
Cited Statute
- Wisconsin Statute 939.48(1) - Self-Defense
- Wisconsin Statute 805.18(2) - Substantial Rights
Judge Name
- Gill, JJ.
- Hruz, JJ.
- Stark, P.J.
Passage Text
- ¶18 Under the facts of this case, we agree with Hughes that the circuit court misapplied the 'some evidence' standard and improperly weighed the evidence to reach its own conclusion about the strength of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses. The court explained its ruling denying the self-defense jury instruction by stating that 'although Mr. Hughes felt hunted, felt pursued, felt he had to disguise his presence,' '[t]here is nothing in the evidence to show that he would have any reasonable, rational need to protect himself.'
- ¶26 For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that Hughes is entitled to a new trial, and we reverse his judgment of conviction and remand to the circuit court for that purpose.
- ¶14 To receive a self-defense instruction, the defendant must present 'some evidence' that he or she acted in self-defense. Id., ¶16. This requirement is a 'low bar,' which may be satisfied by evidence that is 'weak, insufficient, inconsistent, or of doubtful credibility.' Johnson, 397 Wis. 2d 633, ¶17