 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Blanton12/29/2003
Lester Dane Blanton appeals his second degree assault conviction on two grounds. First, he argues that the trial court improperly excluded his testimony about specific prior violent acts of the victim. Second, he argues that the trial court erred when it defined the phrase '{g}reat bodily harm.' We conclude that the testimony was properly excluded and the instructional error was harmless. Accordingly, we affirm Blanton's conviction.
FACTS
In June 2002, Blanton, Phil Stumpf, Jacob Ogden (Jacob), and one unidentified individual, went to William Jesse Ogden's (Ogden) home. They went to Ogden's home to get a generator that they needed to work on Blanton's car. The generator belonged to Jacob, who believed that Ogden had taken it without telling him.
When Ogden heard a knock on his front door he looked out of a window and saw Jacob. He then opened the door and invited Jacob in, saying nothing when the other three followed. Blanton and Ogden began to argue about the generator. The argument quickly intensified and Blanton made a preemptive strike. Blanton punched Ogden in the face, breaking his nose, and then wrestled him to the ground. Blanton struck based on a look in Ogden's eyes. After approximately five minutes the fight ended. Blanton and his friends then left.
At trial, Blanton attempted to testify that he had heard that Ogden had assaulted a friend with a knife, assaulted a woman, and often carried a machete. The trial court sustained the State's objection to this testimony. When the parties rested, Blanton asserted that pursuant to State v. Callahan, 87 Wn. App. 925, 943 P.2d 676 (1997), Blanton could testify as to the rumors he had heard in order to show his state of mind at the time he decided to strike Ogden. The State contended that this testimony violated ER 404 because it was offered to show that Ogden had a propensity for violence. The trial court ruled in favor of the State. The trial court adopted the defense's proposed jury instructions, including 11 Washington Pattern Jury Instructions: Criminal 17.04, at 203 (2d ed. 1994) (WPIC), which states:
A person is entitled to act on appearances in defending himself or another, if that person believes in good faith and on reasonable grounds that he or another is in actual danger of great bodily harm, although it afterwards might develop that the person was mistaken as to the extent of the danger. Actual danger is not necessary for the use of force to be lawful.
Although neither party requested it, the trial court then defined great bodily harm:
Great bodily harm means bodily injury that creates a probability of death, or which causes significant serious permanent disfigurement, or that causes a significant permanent loss or impairment of the function of any bodily part or organ.
The jury convicted Blanton of second degree assault pursuant to RCW 9A.36.021(1)(c).
ANALYSIS
We review a trial court's decision to exclude evidence for an abuse of discretion. State v. Land, 121 Wn.2d 494, 500, 851 P.2d 678 (1993). 'A trial court abuses its discretion when it acts in a manner that is manifestly unreasonable or based on untenable grounds or reasons.' Land, 121 Wn.2d at 500. Whether discretion is manifestly unreasonable or based on untenable grounds depends on 'the comparative and compelling public or private interests of those affected by the order or decision and the comparative weight of the reasons for and against the decision one way or {an}other.' State ex rel. Carroll v. Junker, 79 Wn.2d 12, 26, 482 P.2d 775 (1971).
Blanton first argues that the trial court improperly excluded his testimony as to knowledge
Page 1 2 3 4 Washington Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|