State v. Saunders
175 W.Va. 16, 330 S.E.2d 674 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A person is entitled to use the same degree of force in defense of another person as the person being defended would be lawfully entitled to use in self-defense.
Facts:
- The appellant's brother, James Saunders, was involved in a verbal dispute with Phillip Kincannon at the Nite Flite bar.
- After the bar owner escorted the Saunders brothers outside, Phillip Kincannon and his brother, Brian, confronted them.
- The Kincannon brothers attacked James Saunders, wrestling him to the ground and pinning him in a 'full nelson'.
- The appellant, Robert Saunders, and other witnesses heard Brian Kincannon threaten to kill James Saunders.
- Believing his brother's life was in danger, Robert Saunders retrieved a .357-calibre Magnum revolver from a nearby car.
- Robert Saunders fired the revolver, striking Phillip Kincannon in the left buttocks.
- Phillip Kincannon subsequently bled to death from the wound.
Procedural Posture:
- Robert Saunders was prosecuted for the murder of Phillip Kincannon in the circuit court, a trial court of first instance.
- At trial, the defense requested a jury instruction on the 'defense of another', which the court refused to give.
- The jury convicted Robert Saunders of first-degree murder.
- Robert Saunders, as appellant, appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, the state's highest court.
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 a reversible error by refusing to provide a jury instruction on the affirmative defense of 'defense of another' when there is sufficient evidence for a jury to consider that the defendant acted under a reasonable belief that another person was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm?
Opinions:
Majority - Neely, Chief Justice
Yes. The trial court's refusal to instruct the jury on the defense of another constitutes reversible error where there is evidence to support the defendant's claim. The defense of another is a long-standing legal principle in West Virginia, established in cases like State v. Greer, which allows a person to 'step into the shoes' of a victim and use the force the victim could have lawfully used. In this case, there was sufficient evidence—including the physical altercation, the 'full nelson' hold, and the verbal threats—for a jury to consider whether Robert Saunders reasonably believed his brother was in danger of death or great bodily harm. The state's argument that another instruction on 'sudden passion' was sufficient is incorrect, as that instruction addresses a mitigating factor for manslaughter, not a complete affirmative defense that could lead to acquittal. The validity of a claim of defense of another is a matter for the jury's determination, and they must be properly instructed on the applicable law to fulfill that duty.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the vitality of the 'defense of another' doctrine in West Virginia jurisprudence, clarifying it as a complete affirmative defense rather than merely a mitigating circumstance. It establishes a clear procedural requirement for trial courts: if a defendant presents sufficient evidence to support a claim of defending another, a specific jury instruction on that defense is mandatory. This precedent ensures that juries are properly equipped to evaluate the defendant's justification for using force, thereby strengthening the legal protections for individuals who intervene to prevent serious harm to others. The ruling distinguishes this defense from mitigating factors like 'heat of passion,' cementing its status as a potential basis for full acquittal.
Unlock the full brief for State v. Saunders