Caseflicks

West Virginia Supreme Court • 1985

State v. Saunders

330 S.E.2d 674 | 175 W. Va. 16 | 1985 W. Va. LEXIS 564

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, this case confirms that West Virginia recognizes defense of another and requires a jury instruction on that defense when the evidence could support a finding that the defendant used force to protect someone from death or serious bodily harm.

Background

Robert Saunders was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment with a recommendation of mercy after he fatally shot Phillip Kincannon outside the Nite Flite in Beckley. The shooting followed a series of confrontations between Saunders's brother, James, and Phillip and Brian Kincannon.

According to Saunders and supporting witnesses, the Kincannon brothers had pinned James to the ground, and Brian threatened to kill James with what he believed was James's weapon. Saunders retrieved a .357 Magnum from a nearby vehicle, fired one shot over the combatants' heads, then fired a second shot that struck Phillip in the buttocks. Phillip later bled to death. Saunders claimed he acted because he feared for his brother's life.

At trial, the circuit court refused to give any instruction specifically addressing defense of another, apparently believing that the doctrine was not recognized in West Virginia. It gave an instruction allowing the jury to consider whether the assault on James negated malice and supported voluntary manslaughter, but Saunders was convicted of first-degree murder. On appeal, he raised five assignments of error, but the Supreme Court reversed based on the refusal to instruct on defense of another and did not reach the remaining claims.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether West Virginia recognizes defense of another as a justification for using force, including deadly force when warranted.

Holding

Yes. West Virginia recognizes defense of another as an extension of self-defense; a person may act to protect a brother or another person to the extent that the person defended could lawfully act in self-defense.

Reasoning

The Court relied principally on State v. Greer, an 1883 decision holding that a person may do for a brother what the person could lawfully do in self-defense when threatened with death or great bodily harm. Greer also explained that if the person being defended provoked the encounter, that person ordinarily must retreat if safely able to do so before another may justifiably use lethal force on that person's behalf.

Later West Virginia decisions had not displaced Greer. Although State v. Collins did not resolve the scope of defense of another because the underlying fight had already ended, it did not reject the doctrine. State v. W.J.B. likewise recognized that self-defense may be invoked in protecting a family member.

The Court also described the generally accepted framework: one who intervenes in another's defense steps into the threatened person's shoes. The intervenor may use no greater force than the threatened person could lawfully have used in self-defense.

Issue #2

Whether the circuit court's refusal to give a defense-of-another instruction was harmless because another instruction permitted the jury to consider the beating of Saunders's brother in evaluating malice.

Holding

No. The refusal was reversible error because the instruction given did not adequately present defense of another as an affirmative defense, and the evidence permitted the jury to find that Saunders acted from a reasonable fear that his brother faced death or serious bodily harm.

Reasoning

The instruction on which the State relied addressed sudden passion and the possible absence of malice. At most, it could support a voluntary-manslaughter verdict. It did not tell the jury that Saunders could be legally justified in using force to protect James, so it was misleading and inadequate on the actual defense raised.

The record contained sufficient evidence for a jury to consider the defense. James was allegedly pinned to the ground by the Kincannon brothers, witnesses reported that Brian threatened to kill him, and Saunders testified that he panicked because he feared for his brother's life. Resolving the credibility and weight of that evidence was the jury's task, not the court's.

Like self-defense, defense of another is an affirmative defense whose validity is ordinarily for the jury. Once evidence supports the defense, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act justifiably. By withholding a defense-of-another instruction altogether, the circuit court prevented the jury from deciding that question under the correct legal standard.

Because the instructional error required a new trial, the Court did not address Saunders's remaining challenges to other instructions or his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.