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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I just wanted to point out that Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner, Senator Feinstein, former Senate majority leader Bill Frist, and former attorney general John Ashcroft are responsible for this rubbish. We need to keep a eye on these corrupt, arrogant, and incompetent fools.

  2. Well I guess our politicians have decided to give these idiot federal prosecutors unlimited power. Now if I guy bounces a fifty-dollar check, the U.S. attorney can intentionally wait for twenty-five years or so and have the check swabbed for DNA and file charges. These power hungry federal prosecutors now have unlimited power to mess with people. we can thank Wisconsin's Jim Sensenbrenner and Diane Feinstein, John Achcroft and Bill Frist for this one. Way to go, idiots.

  3. I wonder if the USSR had electronic voting machines that changed the ballot after it was cast? Oh well, at least we have a free media serving as vicious watchdog and exposing all of the rot in the system! (Insert rimshot)

  4. Jose, you are assuming those in power do not wish to be totalitarian. My experience has convinced me otherwise. Constitutionalists are nearly as rare as hens teeth among the powerbrokers "managing" us for The Glorious State. Oh, and your point is dead on, el correcta mundo. Keep the Founders’ (1791 & 1851) vision alive, my friend, even if most all others, and especially the ruling junta, chase only power and money (i.e. mammon)

  5. Hypocrisy in high places, absolute immunity handed out like Halloween treats (it is the stuff of which tyranny is made) and the belief that government agents are above the constitutions and cannot be held responsible for mere citizen is killing, perhaps has killed, The Republic. And yet those same power drunk statists just reel on down the hallway toward bureaucratic fascism.

ADVERTISEMENT