State Of Washington, V Steven Brian Yelovich, 48949-0

Steven Yelovich, subject to a domestic violence no-contact order, chased and accosted his ex-girlfriend, Faith De Armond, after he discovered a cell phone missing from his car and believed she had taken it; a struggle ensued and De Armond fell.
The State charged Yelovich with violating the no-contact order by committing an assault, elevating the offense to a felony under RCW 26.50.110(4).
At trial Yelovich sought a jury instruction on defense of property (combined with self-defense); the court refused, ruling his conduct was an attempt to recover property after the taking, not to prevent a taking.
The jury convicted Yelovich (also convicted of bail jumping, not challenged on appeal).
On appeal Yelovich argued (1) the trial court erred by denying a defense-of-property instruction and (2) the court abused its discretion by allowing the State to reopen its case to call De Armond after both sides had rested.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a defense-of-property jury instruction was required	Yelovich: his use of force was justified to recover property taken from his car	State: defense-of-property applies only to preventing an interference while property is in defendant's possession or about to be taken	Court held: no instruction required — force was used to recover property after taking was completed and property left defendant's control
Whether trial court abused discretion by allowing State to reopen its case to call De Armond	Yelovich: he testified believing De Armond would not appear; reopening prejudiced him and denied adequate opportunity to prepare	State: De Armond was on witness list, her testimony was available and limited to rebuttal; reopening was neglect, not deliberate, and defendant had chance for surrebuttal	Court held: no abuse of discretion; factors did not show unfair prejudice and court allowed limited interview and surrebuttal

Peasley v. Puget Sound Tug & Barge Co., 13 Wn.2d 485 (1942) (defense of property recognized as a defense to assault)
State v. Read, 147 Wn.2d 238 (2002) (test for evaluating self-defense/defense instructions — subjective and objective components)
State v. Walther, 114 Wn. App. 189 (2002) (defendant not entitled to defense-of-property instruction where property was in another’s possession when force used)
Yocum v. State, 777 A.2d 782 (Del. 2001) (no defense-of-property instruction where accused did not observe theft and confronted person after she left premises)
People v. Oslund, 292 P.3d 1025 (Colo. Ct. App. 2012) (theft was complete when property moved outside owner’s control; subsequent force to recover was not defense of property)