State v. Sandoval

156 P.3d 60 (2007)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

D shot and killed his ex-wife's domestic partner, Whitcraft. The two men had a history of combative and sometimes physically violent interactions. The shooting occurred on a road that both men frequently traveled. D described the following sequence of events: Whitcraft had driven by on the road as D was about to turn onto it; after D turned onto the road behind Whitcraft, Whitcraft stopped his truck and backed it into D's truck; Whitcraft then turned and aimed a pistol at D; D grabbed a rifle that he was carrying in his vehicle opened the door and fired a single shot at Whitcraft. The shot had entered Whitcraft's skull behind his left ear, killing him instantly. Police found Whitcraft's loaded and cocked pistol under Whitcraft's body. P offered evidence that D had ambushed Whitcraft -- provoking him until he stopped his truck, training a rifle on him until he reached for his gun, and then shooting him in the head. The court gave a series of jury instructions that were drawn from Uniform Criminal Jury Instructions: 'A person is justified in using physical force upon another person to defend himself from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force. In defending, a person may only use that degree of force which he reasonably believes to be necessary.' 'The burden of proof is on the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense.' 'There are certain limitations on the use of deadly physical force. The defendant is not justified in using deadly physical force against another person in self-defense unless he reasonably believed that the other person was using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force against him and/or committing or attempting to commit a felony involving the use or threatened imminent use of physical force against a person.' 'Even in the situation where one of these threatening circumstances is present, the use of deadly physical force is justified only if it does not exceed the degree of force which defendant reasonably believes to be necessary under the circumstances.' 'The danger justifying the use of deadly force must be absolute, imminent, and unavoidable, and a necessity of taking human life must be actual, present, urgent, and absolutely or apparently absolutely necessary. There must be no reasonable opportunity to escape to avoid the affray and there must be no other means of avoiding or declining the combat.' D objected to the last instruction (in quotes). D was convicted and appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed and D appealed.