Jamar Washington v. State of Indiana, 2013 Ind. LEXIS 872

Jamar Washington intervened when police officer Cedric Young restrained Washington’s girlfriend, Dynasty Brown, during a street altercation; Washington believed Brown’s infant was endangered.
Washington grabbed and jumped on Officer Young, kicked another officer, and injured Officer Weilhammer; he was arrested and charged with multiple felonies and a misdemeanor.
At trial Washington sought three jury instructions: the Indiana Pattern Jury Instruction on defense of another (given), plus two additional subjective-reasonableness instructions (refused).
The trial court gave the pattern defense-of-another instruction modeled on the statute and Indiana Pattern Jury Instruction 10.03A.
Washington was convicted on several counts; he appealed the refusal to give his extra instructions. The Court of Appeals affirmed; the Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by refusing Washington’s additional defense-of-another instructions	State: pattern instruction correctly stated law and adequately covered issues	Washington: needed additional instructions emphasizing subjective belief and immunity for honest mistakes about danger	The court held the pattern instruction correctly stated law; refusing the tendered instructions was not an abuse of discretion

French v. State, 273 Ind. 251, 403 N.E.2d 821 (1980) (requires jury be instructed that defendant’s honest, subjective belief and reasonableness must be balanced)
Shaw v. State, 534 N.E.2d 745 (Ind. 1989) (clarifies that jury should consider defendant’s belief while applying an objective-reasonableness standard)
Littler v. State, 871 N.E.2d 276 (Ind. 2007) (explains “reasonably believes” has subjective and objective components)
Hirsch v. State, 697 N.E.2d 37 (Ind. 1998) (emphasizes examining circumstances as they appeared to defendant; defendant’s testimony is critically relevant)