Summary
The Nevada Supreme Court held that a defendant charged with battery may be entitled to jury instructions on justifiable battery based on self-defense, even when the victim survives. Because the trial court provided self-defense instructions addressing only killing and attempted killing and rejected instructions addressing justifiable battery, the court found reversible error, reversed the conviction, and remanded for a new trial.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Davis presented sufficient evidence to warrant jury instructions on self-defense even though the charged offense involved battery rather than homicide.
- Whether Davis's proposed justifiable-battery instructions accurately stated Nevada law.
- Whether the self-defense instructions concerning killing and attempted killing substantially covered Davis's theory of justifiable battery.
- Whether the district court's refusal to give the proposed instructions was harmless error.
Holdings
- A defendant charged with battery is entitled to self-defense instructions when some evidence supports the theory, even though the victim did not die.
- Davis's proposed instructions accurately stated Nevada law because justifiable battery encompasses nonfatal force used in circumstances that would justify homicide, including defense against a person who manifests an intent to commit a felony by violence or surprise or to inflict great personal injury.
- Instructions addressing only justifiable killing and attempted killing did not substantially cover a defendant's distinct theory that the battery itself was justified in self-defense.
- The refusal to give the proposed justifiable-battery instructions was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and required reversal.
Key quotations
“justifiable battery is the battery of a human being, which does not result in death and is necessary for self-defense against one who manifestly intends to commit a felony by using violence or surprise, or when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person injured to do some great personal injury to the person inflicting the injury.” (2014 NV 16, at 12)
“NRS 200.275 unequivocally provides that battery is justifiable in self-defense under the same conditions that would justify homicide.” (2014 NV 16, at 15)
Factual background
Davis shot Damien Rhodes in the chest during an altercation after Rhodes allegedly pursued and struck Davis and implied that he was armed. Davis testified that he knew Rhodes had previously used violence and carried a gun, that he tried to walk away, and that he fired while attempting to defend himself after Rhodes attacked him. Rhodes survived, and the jury convicted Davis of battery with a deadly weapon resulting in substantial bodily harm.
Procedural history
The State charged Davis with attempted murder with use of a deadly weapon and battery with use of a deadly weapon after Davis shot Damien Rhodes during an altercation. During the six-day jury trial, the district court rejected Davis's proposed justifiable-battery instructions but gave self-defense instructions addressing killing and attempted killing. The jury convicted Davis of battery with a deadly weapon resulting in substantial bodily harm, and the Supreme Court of Nevada reversed and remanded for a new trial.
Remand instructions
Reverse Davis's conviction for battery with a deadly weapon causing substantial bodily harm and remand to the district court for a new trial.