ILNews

COA: man doesn't have to testify for self-defense instruction

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals ordered a new trial for a man convicted of murder because the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on self-defense without the defendant’s testimony.

In Larry Ault v. State of Indiana, No. 49A04-1008-CR-492, Larry Ault got into a heated argument with Andrew Parrish when Parrish and Donna Choate arrived at Ault’s home. The two came to confront Ault about money he owed after buying a radio from Parrish’s friend. Choate had to separate the men twice. When Parrish ripped off his coat, threw it in his truck and said he was going to beat up Ault now, Ault shot Parrish in the head and killed him.

At his trial, the trial court considered the permissibility of a self-defense jury instruction in the event that Ault didn’t testify. The trial judge concluded that the subjective standard of the self-defense argument couldn’t be satisfied without Ault testifying as to his perception of what was going on the day of the shooting. Ault then took the stand and was found guilty of murder.

Ault appealed the conclusion that prior to his testimony, the record lacked evidence of self-defense to support giving a self-defense jury instruction. At trial, Ault’s attorney asked whether the trial judge’s ruling meant that self-defense instructions were never available in cases where defendants didn’t testify, and the judge couldn’t answer that.

This issue hasn’t been precisely raised in Indiana, so the appellate judges relied on Hilbert v. Commonwealth, 162 S.W.3d 921, 924 (2005), from the Kentucky Supreme Court; and People v. Hoskins, 267 N.W.2d 417, 418 (1978), from the Michigan Supreme Court, to conclude a defendant doesn’t have to testify in order to receive a self-defense instruction as long as the defense is supported by the evidence.

In the instant case, the trial court found the fact that Parrish was on Ault’s property, he was shouting and threatening Ault with bodily injury, and had indicated he would attack Ault “now” was enough to establish the objective component of self-defense, wrote Judge Cale Bradford.

“Given the broad use in Indiana of circumstantial evidence to show an individual’s state of mind, and in light of Hilbert and Hoskins, we must conclude that these facts were similarly adequate to support a reasonable inference regarding the subjective component of self-defense, namely that Ault believed deadly force was necessary to protect himself. We therefore conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to instruct the jury on self-defense without Ault’s testimony,” he wrote.

Denying the self-defense instruction on these facts was not a harmless error, so the appellate judges ordered a new trial.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  2. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  3. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  4. Different rules for different folks....

  5. I would strongly suggest anyone seeking mediation check the experience of the mediator. There are retired judges who decide to become mediators. Their training and experience is in making rulings which is not the point of mediation.

ADVERTISEMENT