Court: Court of Appeals of Washington; May 21, 1990; Washington; State Appellate Court
Guy Earl Baker appeals his first-degree manslaughter conviction, arguing that the jury instructions inadequately assigned the burden of proof regarding the absence of excuse beyond a reasonable doubt to the State. He raises three primary issues: (1) improper jury instructions on excusable homicide, (2) a shift in the burden of proof regarding excusable homicide and recklessness to the defendant, and (3) the trial court's refusal to provide instructions on self-defense and resistance to felony, hindering his ability to present his case theory.
The case centers on the shooting of Donald Bryant, who died after being shot by Baker following a day of escalating aggression from Bryant, who was intoxicated and had threatened Baker. Baker asserts the shooting was accidental and occurred while he was defending himself. The State contends that Baker acted recklessly, leading to the discharge of the firearm.
Details reveal that after Bryant threatened Baker with a stick and attempted to force entry into Baker’s trailer, Baker fired three warning shots to deter him. Despite Baker's attempts to calm Bryant, further altercations ensued, culminating in a struggle where the gun accidentally discharged, resulting in Bryant's death. Baker later stated to police that he was never afraid of Bryant. Baker disputes the instruction wording related to excusable homicide, claiming it improperly simplified the requirement from proving a lack of criminal negligence or unlawful intent to merely proving the absence of recklessness.
Defense counsel objected to a jury instruction on the grounds that it improperly removed the burden of proof regarding the absence of excuse, but did not raise objections to other modifications, resulting in the waiver of any error. Even if the challenge were permissible, the trial court exercised its discretion appropriately in crafting the instructions, which must be understandable and not misleading. The contested instruction included the reckless element of first-degree manslaughter in relation to the defense of excuse, ultimately benefiting the defendant.
Baker contended that the instruction shifted the burden of proof regarding recklessness or excuse to him and proposed an alternative that specified the State's burden to prove the absence of excuse beyond a reasonable doubt. Both parties agreed that the State holds this burden, although they disagreed about the adequacy of the instructions in conveying this to the jury. Baker cited State v. Acosta to argue that the jury was not properly informed of the State's burden concerning excusable homicide.
The court noted that a specific instruction on the burden of proof for excusable homicide is generally unnecessary since the statutory definition serves as a guide and does not require independent proof. Instruction 6 defined excusable homicide as lacking recklessness, meaning that if the State established recklessness, it also established the absence of excuse. Thus, if the prosecution failed to prove recklessness beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury would find the homicide excusable without needing further consideration.
The jury instructions were deemed adequate as they allowed for the defense's theory to be presented effectively. Instructions 4 and 5 clearly indicated that the State needed to prove that Baker acted recklessly to secure a conviction for first-degree manslaughter. Taken together, the instructions conveyed that proving recklessness also negated the availability of the defense of excuse.
The challenged jury instruction, while lacking specific burden language, was not deemed erroneous when viewed in conjunction with other instructions. Baker argued that the trial court erred by not providing defense instructions on justifiable homicide. However, the core of Baker's defense was that the shooting of Bryant was accidental, rather than intentional. Despite framing the case with elements of self-defense, the evidence presented—including witness testimony—did not support a claim of imminent danger or aggression from Bryant. Therefore, the trial court was justified in not submitting the justifiable homicide defense to the jury, as it requires evidence of intentional killing justified by exigent circumstances, which was absent in this case. The court highlighted that Baker consistently maintained that the shooting was accidental, thus negating a reliance on a justification defense. Baker was permitted to argue self-defense under other provided instructions, but since there was no evidence of intentional killing, additional instructions on justifiable homicide were unnecessary. The trial court's decision was ultimately affirmed. Reconsideration was denied on October 2, 1990, with further review denied. Instruction 6 defined excusable homicide in the context of accidental acts without recklessness, as outlined in RCW 9A.16.030.
