State v. Rupp
1979 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 989, 282 N.W.2d 125 (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a defendant claiming self-defense presents evidence that an available alternative course of action, such as retreat, would have entailed a risk to their life or safety, the trial court commits reversible error by failing to instruct the jury on the statutory right to use reasonable force without first taking that alternative action.
Facts:
- An argument began at the Hi-Lo Lodge tavern between Curtis Sederburg and a third party, Bud Wolf, over a bet.
- The defendant became involved in the dispute, which escalated and continued in the parking lot after the parties left the tavern.
- The defendant and Sederburg had a history of conflict, including several prior physical assaults by Sederburg against the defendant, one of which resulted in serious injury.
- Sederburg had previously threatened the defendant's life on multiple occasions, once while pointing a gun at him and another time stating he might collect on a supposed contract on the defendant's life.
- During the confrontation in the parking lot, Sederburg started to advance aggressively toward the defendant.
- The defendant produced a .38 caliber revolver, fired a warning shot into the air, and warned Sederburg not to come any closer.
- Sederburg ignored the warning and continued to advance on the defendant.
- The defendant then shot Sederburg in the arm.
Procedural Posture:
- The defendant was charged under a single information with two counts: assault with intent to commit murder and possession of firearms by a felon.
- The two charges were tried together before a jury in a state trial court.
- The jury returned guilty verdicts on both counts.
- The defendant appealed the sentences from both convictions to the Supreme Court of Iowa.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court commit reversible error by failing to instruct the jury on the statutory exception to the duty to retreat in a self-defense case, where the defendant has presented substantial evidence that retreating would have posed a risk to their life or safety?
Opinions:
Majority - LeGrand, J.
Yes, the trial court committed reversible error. Under Iowa law, a person may use reasonable force, including deadly force, without first taking an available alternative course of action if that alternative entails a risk to one's life or safety. The defendant presented substantial evidence of prior assaults and threats by Sederburg, which was sufficient for a jury to conclude that he reasonably feared for his safety and that retreating would have been dangerous. By giving instructions that mandated seeking an alternative course of action without including the statutory exception, the court omitted a critical element of the defendant's justification defense, which constitutes prejudicial error requiring a new trial on the assault charge.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the application of Iowa's self-defense statute, particularly its 'stand your ground' component. It establishes that a generalized instruction on the duty to retreat is insufficient and erroneous when the defendant has presented evidence making the statutory exception to that duty applicable. The ruling mandates that trial courts provide specific jury instructions tailored to the evidence, ensuring that the jury can properly consider a defendant's right not to retreat when doing so poses a safety risk. This precedent strengthens the legal footing for defendants who use force in self-defense after a documented history of violence and threats from their aggressor.
