Opinion
No. 126, 2003.
Submitted: August 5, 2003.
Decided: September 26, 2003.
Court Below: Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County Cr.A. No. IN-02-08-1521
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices.
ORDER
This 26th day of September 2003, upon consideration of the briefs of the parties it appears to the Court that:
(1) Carlos Gutierrez was indicted for Assault in a Detention Facility. Following a jury trial, he was convicted of the lesser-included offense of Assault Third Degree.
DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 11 Del. C. § 1254 (2001).
Id. § 611.
He was sentenced to six months' imprisonment at Level V to be served consecutively to the life sentence he has been serving since 1985. Gutierrez appeals from the judgment of conviction.
(2) The assault occurred on May 16, 2002, at the Delaware Department of Correction. Gutierrez, an inmate, was brought to an interview room for a preliminary hearing on an alleged disciplinary violation. Lieutenant Seacord conducted the hearing.
According to the State, Gutierrez balled up the disciplinary "writeup" sheet and threw the paper on the floor. As Seacord attempted to pick up the sheet, Gutierrez punched Seacord several times. Three correctional officers standing outside the office witnessed the altercation and rushed into the office and restrained Gutierrez. Seacord sustained injuries, including a fractured rib.
(3) Gutierrez was charged with committing assault in a detention facility. At trial, Gutierrez testified that he punched Seacord only after Seacord stabbed Gutierrez' hand with a pen. The three other correctional officers who witnessed the assault did not see Seacord stab Gutierrez. Gutierrez was sent to a physician assistant at the correctional facility shortly after the assault, and the physician assistant testified that Gutierrez did not sustain any injury to his hands.
(4) Gutierrez requested a jury instruction for a justification defense. Given the conflicting testimony of the other eyewitnesses and the physician assistant, the trial court denied the request for the instruction, holding that Gutierrez had not presented "credible" evidence to support his theory of self-defense. Gutierrez challenges the Superior Court's denial of his request for the justification instruction.
(5) This Court reviews de novo the Superior Court's denial of a requested jury instruction.
Lunnon v. State, 710 A.2d 197, 199 (Del. 1998).
(6) This case concerns the quantum of evidence sufficient to warrant a jury instruction on self-defense. Gutierrez was entitled to an instruction for self-defense if he could have proven that his use of force was justified because he believed the "force [was] immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting [himself] against the use of unlawful force" by Seacord. Gutierrez could introduce this defense to the jury only if "the court is satisfied that some credible evidence supporting the defense has been presented."
DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 11 Del. C. § 464(a) (2001).
Id. § 303(a).
(7) Because Gutierrez' testimony was not corroborated by the record and conflicted with the testimony of all the other witnesses, the State contends that the trial court properly rejected the defense as not supported by "credible evidence." The State relies on this Court's decision in Curry v. State, in which this Court held that a defendant did not present sufficient evidence to support a self-defense instruction in a first-degree robbery case. In Curry, the defendant bit the victim after the victim caught the defendant stealing tools from the victim's van. When the victim caught the robber attempting to steal the tools, the victim knocked the robber to the ground and held his arms around the robber's chest. The robber contended at trial that he could not breathe because the victim's arms covered his mouth. Thus, the robber argued, he was justified in biting the victim and requested a jury instruction on self-defense.
No. 445, 1996, 1997 Del. LEXIS 370 (Del. Oct. 22, 1997).
This Court held that the victim's alleged conduct did not present a threat of "deadly force" that was necessary for the requested jury instruction. Even assuming the victim placed his elbows over the defendant's mouth, the ten seconds of purported "suffocation" did not constitute a credible threat of deadly force.
Id. at *2-3.
(8) Gutierrez' claim differs from the requested instruction in Curry because, if Gutierrez' version of the facts is true, he was entitled to a self-defense instruction. The evidence presented by a defendant seeking a self-defense instruction is "credible" for purposes of Title 11 Del. C. § 303(a) if the defendant's rendition of events, if taken as true, would entitle him to the instruction.
(9) Gutierrez was entitled to the self-defense instruction. He was not required to prove that the alleged stabbing constituted a threat of "deadly force." He was entitled to receive a self-defense instruction if the corrections officer threatened to use "unlawful force." If taken as true, Gutierrez' version of the events entitled him to a self-defense instruction. Whether Gutierrez' version of the facts was credible should have been determined by the jury.
See DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 11 Del. C. § 464(a) ("The use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable when the defendant believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting the defendant against the use of unlawful force by the other person on the present occasion.").
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior Court is REVERSED.