State v. Jimerson
618 P.2d 1027 (1980), 27 Wash. App. 415 (1980)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on a lesser included offense when two conditions are met: (1) each element of the lesser offense is a necessary element of the greater offense charged, and (2) the evidence presented supports an inference that the lesser crime was committed.
Facts:
- Raymond Arthur Jimerson, Jr., was driving his car with friends when it spun out on an icy road near two off-duty policemen.
- After the policemen suggested Jimerson drive more carefully, a verbal and minor physical altercation ensued where the officers pushed Jimerson back into his car.
- Jimerson drove away, but then turned his car around and accelerated rapidly toward the officers, who were on the other side of the street.
- To avoid being hit, the two officers climbed an embankment.
- One officer drew his service revolver and fired at the oncoming car, hitting a door.
- Jimerson's car swerved toward the officers but ultimately missed them before he drove away.
- Jimerson later testified that his sole intention was to drive by and splash the officers with slush from the road, not to strike them with the vehicle.
Procedural Posture:
- Raymond Arthur Jimerson, Jr. was charged in a Washington trial court with first-degree assault.
- At trial, the defense requested a jury instruction on the lesser included offense of simple assault, which the court denied.
- The court did, however, instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of second-degree assault.
- A jury found Jimerson guilty on two counts of second-degree assault.
- Jimerson appealed his conviction to the Court of Appeals of Washington, arguing the trial court erred in refusing the simple assault instruction.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the trial court commit prejudicial error by refusing to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of simple assault when the defendant testified that he did not intend to hit the victims with his car but only to splash them with slush?
Opinions:
Majority - Munson, J.
Yes, the trial court's failure to give an instruction on the lesser included offense of simple assault was prejudicial error. A defendant is entitled to such an instruction if there is any evidence produced that would justify a reasonable person in concluding that the lesser offense had been committed. In this case, Jimerson's own testimony that he only intended to splash the officers with slush, rather than hit them with his car, provided an evidentiary basis for simple assault. The credibility of this testimony is a question for the jury to decide, not the trial judge. By refusing the instruction, the court improperly weighed the evidence and usurped the jury's role as the finder of fact.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the critical distinction between the roles of the judge and the jury in a criminal trial. It establishes that a defendant's own testimony, regardless of its perceived credibility by the trial judge, can be sufficient to satisfy the factual prong for requiring a lesser included offense instruction. This protects the jury's function as the ultimate arbiter of fact and prevents defendants from being placed in an 'all-or-nothing' position where the jury must choose between conviction on a serious felony or a complete acquittal, even if the evidence could support an intermediate outcome.
Unlock the full brief for State v. Jimerson