 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. I.B.11/27/2000
I.B. appeals his juvenile court conviction of assault in the second degree for stabbing another boy during a fight after school. He contends that the court improperly excluded evidence of the violent reputation of one of the boys present at, but not involved in the fight. He also assigns error to the legal standard the juvenile court used to evaluate his claim of self-defense. He further alleges that the State failed to prove the absence of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. Finally, he asserts that the State's untimely entry of written findings and the court's failure to make findings regarding specific evidence in the record require reversal. Finding no error, we affirm.
I.B. and Jeremy H. attended the same junior high school. Jeremy had indicated a desire to fight I.B. on one afternoon after school. I.B. passed by Jeremy and his group of friends, one of whom threw a bottle that hit I.B. in the head. A fist fight ensued between Jeremy and I.B., during which I.B. stabbed Jeremy in the arm and back. At a fact finding hearing, the juvenile court found I.B. guilty of assault in the second degree with reckless infliction of substantial bodily harm. I.B. appeals.
I.B. first contends that the court erred in excluding evidence of the violent reputation of Joe H., Jeremy's brother, and of Joe's prejudice against Russians. I.B. argues that the evidence was relevant to show I.B.'s state of mind at the time of the fight, supporting his claim of self- defense. A trial court's decision to exclude or admit evidence will not be disturbed absent a manifest abuse of discretion. Evidence is relevant if it tends 'to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.'
The court ruled that because Joe H. was not involved in the fight with I.B., evidence of his reputation for violence was not closely enough related to I.B.'s claim of self-defense against Jeremy to be relevant. Further, I.B. did not testify that he was afraid of Joe. I.B. stated that he did not know the boy by sight. Thus, although Joe was present at the incident, I.B. did not know it until afterwards. The court clearly did not abuse its discretion in excluding the evidence.
I.B. next contends that his conviction should be reversed because the juvenile court erroneously ruled as a matter of law that I.B. could not fear great bodily injury from an unarmed assailant. The court did not so rule. RCW 9A.16.020 provides the basis for self-defense in Washington. It states that a person, about to be injured, may use force against another to prevent or attempt to prevent 'an offense against his or her person . . .'
The degree of force used in self-defense is limited to what a reasonably prudent person would find necessary under the conditions as they appeared to the defendant. Deadly force may only be used if a defendant reasonably believes he or she is threatened with death or 'great personal injury ' which is defined as an injury that would produce severe pain and suffering, regardless of the manner in which such injury is inflicted. The juvenile court in this case concluded that the degree of force used by I.B. was not reasonable under the circumstances as they appeared to I.B. The court based its conclusion on its findings that the boys engaged in a 'hand-to- hand/fist-fight/wrestling match' where they were 'evenly matched,' and evidence of self-defense was 'virtually nonexistent.' These findings were supported by substantial evidence in the record. The court applied the correct rule regarding the use of deadly force in self-defense.
I.B. further argues that the State failed t
Page 1 2 Washington Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|