Opinion
No. 2-013 / 01-0420.
Filed February 20, 2002.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Lee (North) County, R. DAVID FAHEY, Judge.
Defendant Rondoe Reece Wright appeals from the judgment, conviction and sentence on the charge of interference with official acts causing serious injury, in violation of Iowa Code section 719.1(2) (1999). AFFIRMED.
Linda Del Gallo, State Appellate Defender, and Nan Jennisch, Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Sharon Hall, Assistant Attorney General, Michael Short, County Attorney, and Robert Glaser, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by SACKETT, C.J., and ZIMMER and VAITHESWARAN, JJ.
Defendant-appellant Rondoe Reece Wright appeals from the judgment, conviction and sentence on the charge of interference with official acts causing serious injury, in violation of Iowa Code section 719.1(2) (1999). Defendant contends the district court should have given his requested instruction on self-defense. We affirm.
While an inmate in Fort Madison, defendant, who was involved in a confrontation with prison guards, was charged with interference with official acts causing serious injury, in violation of section 719.1(2). Defendant filed a notice of self-defense. The State contends that justification is not available as a defense to a charge of interference with official acts and that there is not substantial evidence to support submission of a justification defense. The State further urges that as a matter of public policy, if we conclude a prison inmate may raise justification in response to a charge of interference with official acts, the standard of proof should require proof of actual danger of serious injury or death.
The State's evidence showed the correctional officer, Richard Brookhard, dispensed medication to the inmates. According to prison policy, after he gave a pill or pills to an inmate, he was required to watch to be sure the inmate put the pill in his mouth and swallowed it. Defendant was in the shower when Brookhard arrived with his medication. Brookhard asked defendant to take his pill, and defendant said he could not take the pill in the shower because it was necessary that he take his medication with food. Defendant asked Brookhard to leave the pill in his cell so he could have it with his lunch. Brookhard told defendant this was against prison policy, that he had to watch defendant take his pill. The defendant then became loud, argumentative and aggressive, and he protested that he could not take the pill without food because it would upset his stomach. Correctional officer Shane Houseal was in the area and observed the verbal confrontation between defendant and Brookhard. Lt. Raleigh Helmick came to the area to see what was going on and told defendant he could not yell at a staff member. Helmick told defendant the officer could watch him take the pill while defendant was in the shower or in his cell, but the pill could not be left in the cell. Defendant continued to argue. Helmick asked defendant if he was going to take the pill, and defendant responded in the negative. Helmick told Brookhard to proceed with dispensing medication to the other inmates. At this point Houseal ordered defendant out of the shower and back to his cell. Defendant protested and grabbed a bar of soap and struck Houseal on both sides of his face. First Helmick and then all three officers tried to restrain defendant. They forced defendant to the ground and into a headlock. Houseal later found his jaw had been broken. He has since had a number of surgical interventions to attempt to repair the damage and to reconstruct the jaw. Hauseal had permanent damage to the nerves in his face and lost part of the function of his mouth.
Defendant testified that he was not the instigator of the confrontation. He said that he and Brookhard were arguing over his taking the medication, that he told Brookhard he was not going to take the pill, and that he then shut the shower curtain. Defendant said Helmick then stuck his head into the shower and told defendant to stop being loud and arguing with his staff. Defendant said the argument escalated as correctional officers cast aspersions and racial epithets at him. Defendant said that through all of this he tried to behave in a conciliatory manner. Defendant further stated that during this time he had accidentally dropped the soap in the shower and had slipped while trying to pick it up. He said Houseal told him twice, "Pick that up, Nigger." Defendant said he then turned around and felt hands around his neck and right arm. It was then that he was restrained on the ground in a headlock, and he claimed he struck back at the officers only to protect himself. Defendant denied that he either started or continued the physical altercation.
At the close of the evidence the defendant made a request for a justification or a self-defense instruction. The court said it did not believe a reasonable jury could find from the defendant's testimony or the testimony of others in combination with it that defendant was being assaulted. The court said it did not believe that the officer could legally be found guilty of an assault, for he was acting within the scope of his authority, and defendant was required to submit to that authority.
The district court also addressed the question of whether the testimony supported giving justification instructions due to the escalation of the confrontation. The court said it recognized that a legal act may become an illegal act at a certain point, and a person may have the right to resist at that point. The court went on to find the record did not support the use of a justification instruction on that ground.
Defendant contends it was error for the district court not to give the requested instruction. It is conceded that error was preserved.
We review for correction of errors at law. Iowa R. App. P. 4. See also State v. Kellogg, 542 N.W.2d 514, 516 (Iowa 1996). The district court has a duty to instruct a jury fully and fairly on the law applicable to all material issues that are supported by the evidence. State v. Lindsey, 302 N.W.2d 98, 102 (Iowa 1981); State v. Watlkin, 463 N.W.2d 15, 17 (Iowa 1990). The instructions must adequately cover the legal principals raised by the particular facts of the case, including the defendant's theory of defense. See Lindsey, 302 N.W.2d at 104; Iowa R. Crim. P. 18(5)(f). In general, where substantial evidence of self-defense exists, a court has a duty to instruct the jury on the defense. State v. Rains, 574 N.W.2d 904, 915 (Iowa 1998).
Self-defense is designated as the defense of justification and is codified in Iowa Code section 704.3. State v. Dunson, 433 N.W.2d 676, 677 (Iowa 1988). The defendant bears the burden of demonstrating the record contains sufficient evidence to support an instruction on justification or self-defense. The burden of disproving self-defense rests with the State. See State v. Ceaser, 585 N.W.2d 192, 194 (Iowa 1998).
The State advances that the issue of whether a claim of self-defense may properly be raised to justify interference with official acts has not been decided in Iowa. We find no reason to disagree with that conclusion. The State contends that we should hold that the defense of justification is not available to a charge of interference with official acts.
The State further contends there is not substantial evidence to support the giving of the requested instruction. We agree, and therefore find it unnecessary to address whether the defense is available against a charge of interference with official acts.
The correctional officers had the authority to order defendant back to his cell and to use reasonable force to effectuate that purpose. Viewing defendant's version of the events in the light most favorable to him, the most the evidence shows is that defendant was restrained by Houseal and that he escaped from his hold before he took a couple of swings at the officer.
Iowa Code section 704.3 provides: "A person is justified in the use of reasonable force when the person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to defend oneself or another from any imminent use of unlawful force" (emphasis added). If substantial evidence exists, the district court has a duty to give the requested instruction. Dunson, 433 N.W.2d at 677.
The evidence does not show that defendant had a "reasonable belief" that force was necessary to defend himself. Nor is there substantial evidence of an imminent use of unlawful force such as would justify defendant's response. See State v. Rains, 574 N.W.2d 904, 915 (Iowa 1998). The district court did not err in failing to submit the requested instructions on self-defense, for substantial evidence did not exist to support submission of such instructions.
AFFIRMED.