Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama; December 17, 2015; Alabama; State Appellate Court
Ellis Andrei Diggs appeals his conviction for the intentional murder of Garry Blackwell, under Ala. Code 1975 § 13A-6-2(a)(1). Diggs, previously convicted for the same crime, had that conviction reversed due to the trial court's failure to instruct the jury on self-defense, leading to a retrial.
The state’s evidence showed that in February 2012, Blackwell operated a nightclub where his employee, Chasity Bowen, had a confrontation with him that escalated into an argument. Bowen informed Diggs about the incident, prompting him and his brother, Eric Johnson, to confront Blackwell. Initially calm, the situation deteriorated into a heated argument, during which Diggs shot Blackwell multiple times with a handgun. Eyewitnesses testified that Blackwell was unarmed at the time of the shooting, and no weapons were found at the scene, although 15 cartridge casings were recovered, indicating at least two different firearms were fired.
The medical examiner confirmed that Blackwell sustained five gunshot wounds, two of which were fatal. Johnson, an eyewitness, claimed that Blackwell pulled a gun and started firing before he fled the scene, but Johnson also stated he did not possess a firearm that night. Diggs provided testimony in his defense during the trial.
Diggs provided testimony regarding his criminal history, including convictions for third-degree burglary and possession of a controlled substance, and acknowledged that he was prohibited from possessing a firearm. On the night of the incident, he claimed Bowen informed him that Blackwell had assaulted her. Uncertain of Bowen's claims, Diggs decided to confront Blackwell at a nightclub, despite Bowen warning him of a threat from Blackwell. He obtained a loaded handgun from a neighbor prior to this confrontation. At the nightclub, Diggs approached Blackwell and asked about the earlier incident. According to Diggs, Blackwell responded aggressively, brandishing a gun and firing at Diggs, prompting Diggs to shoot back in self-defense, driven by fear rather than aim.
On appeal, Diggs contended that the trial court wrongfully denied his request for a jury instruction regarding a felon's right to use a firearm in self-defense, asserting that his actions were justified given the immediate threat to his life. He argued that the trial court's instructions did not adequately address his request and claimed that the right to self-defense, as outlined in Alabama law, applied to his situation. Diggs conflated two legal concepts regarding self-defense and standing one's ground, misunderstanding that his possession of the firearm constituted unlawful activity under the law. The relevant Alabama statute allows for self-defense under certain conditions but restricts the use of physical force if the individual is engaged in unlawful activity or has provoked the encounter.
In Diggs I, the court determined that the trial court mistakenly denied a jury instruction on self-defense under Ala.Code 1975, § 13A-3-23(a)(1) because Diggs provided supporting evidence for his self-defense claim. Consequently, the conviction was reversed, and a new trial was ordered. The court also suggested that Diggs might have been entitled to an additional instruction under § 13A-3-23(b), regarding the absence of a duty to retreat. However, in Fuller v. State, the court clarified that previous references to the duty to retreat in Diggs I were unnecessary and considered dicta. The court differentiated between the rights to self-defense under § 13A-3-23(a) and the right to stand one's ground under § 13A-3-23(b).
In Fuller, it was established that if an individual unable to lawfully possess a weapon faces imminent danger, they may lawfully take possession of a weapon for self-defense, but only for the duration necessary. The court ruled that individuals cannot lawfully arm themselves prior to an altercation and then invoke the "no-duty-to-retreat" provision if they instigate a violent situation. It further emphasized that unlawful possession of a firearm is not a strict liability offense, but such individuals still retain a duty to retreat under common law if possible, as stated in § 13A-3-23, which excludes those engaged in unlawful activities from the "no-duty-to-retreat" protection.
The trial court instructed the jury that Alabama law permits the use of force, including deadly force, in self-defense. If the jury believed Diggs acted in self-defense, they were to find him not guilty. The law allows individuals to use reasonable force to defend against perceived imminent unlawful physical force, including deadly force if they reasonably believe it is necessary to protect themselves from serious injury or death.
A reasonable belief is defined as one based on reasonable appearances, not formed recklessly or negligently. The standard for reasonableness is whether the belief was justified under the circumstances, particularly in self-defense scenarios. A defendant may not use deadly force if they can safely retreat to avoid such force. However, if the individual is justified in using physical force, not engaged in unlawful activity, and in a rightful location, they have no duty to retreat and can stand their ground. Deadly force is unjustified if the defendant provoked the encounter, was the initial aggressor, or if the death resulted from mutual combat. The burden of proof lies with the State to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense once it is raised as an issue. The terms 'aggressor' and 'controversy' are differentiated, with 'aggressor' referring to someone engaged in physical altercation and 'controversy' indicating a dispute of ideas.
During jury instructions, Diggs's attorney objected to a charge stating that a felon retains the right to use a firearm for self-defense when facing imminent harm. The attorney cited a precedent from the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals, asserting that justification serves as a defense for a felon in possession of a firearm under such circumstances. Concerns were raised that jurors might misinterpret the law regarding the defendant's prior felony convictions and their implications on unlawful activity, which could affect their deliberation. The trial court acknowledged and noted the objections.
A trial court has broad discretion in crafting jury instructions, provided they accurately reflect the law and facts. While defendants have the right to have the jury instructed on their defense theory, courts can decline to give requested instructions if they are sufficiently covered, confusing, misleading, or misstate the law. In this case, the trial court’s instructions were aligned with relevant statutory provisions and previous case law regarding self-defense and the duty to retreat. The court correctly instructed the jury without stating that the defendant, Diggs, was prohibited from obtaining a weapon for self-defense. Additionally, the court was not obligated to clarify Diggs’s engagement in lawful activity or his duty to retreat when using a firearm, as such instructions would have been incorrect based on precedent. Consequently, the trial court’s decision to deny Diggs's requested jury instruction did not constitute an error or affect his right to a fair trial. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
