State v. Andrew
340 P.3d 476
Kan.2014Background
- On Jan. 25, 2008, James R. Andrew entered Mitchell Garlach’s home without knocking; Garlach confronted him and displayed force (allegedly a billy club); Andrew pulled a kitchen knife and was later convicted of aggravated assault.
- Andrew did not testify; his defense relied primarily on his son’s testimony claiming Andrew acted in self-defense.
- At trial the judge gave both PIK Crim. 4th 52.200 (self-defense) and PIK Crim. 4th 52.210 (defense of a dwelling) but added language stating that when a person acts lawfully to force someone out, self-defense is not available to the person being forced out.
- Andrew objected, arguing the dwelling instruction was factually inappropriate and the added sentence misstated the law; the trial court gave the instruction anyway.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed in an unpublished decision (2–1); Andrew sought Supreme Court review on the dwelling-instruction issue.
- The Kansas Supreme Court examined whether (1) a defense-of-dwelling instruction may be given when the alleged victim, not the defendant, used force to defend the dwelling, and (2) whether the trial judge’s added sentence (making the defenses mutually exclusive) misstated the law and was harmless error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a defense-of-dwelling instruction may be given when the alleged victim (not defendant) used force to defend the dwelling | State: Instruction can be given to explain law relevant to jury’s factfinding | Andrew: Alexander precludes giving the dwelling instruction when it only justifies the victim’s actions | Court: Instruction permissible; Alexander’s contrary statement disapproved; statute and facts support giving both instructions |
| Whether adding language that self-defense is unavailable to a person being lawfully forced out was legally correct | State: If force is lawful, the person cannot claim self-defense | Andrew: The two defenses are not mutually exclusive; modification misstated law | Court: The modification was erroneous—self-defense can be available if defendant reasonably believes the other’s force is unlawful |
| Whether the instructional error was reversible (harmlessness) | Andrew: Error denied his defense and was prejudicial | State: Error harmless given facts showing use of force was objectively unreasonable | Court: Error harmless beyond a reasonable possibility; Andrew’s use of force was objectively unreasonable because he entered without permission and was identified as unwelcome |
| Whether sufficient evidence supported giving the dwelling instruction | State: Evidence supported that Garlach was defending his dwelling when Andrew pulled a knife | Andrew: He had prior visits and might have reasonably believed he had permission | Court: Sufficient evidence existed to support the dwelling instruction; no standing invitation shown |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Alexander, 268 Kan. 610 (Kan. 2000) (previously suggested not giving dwelling instruction when it only justifies victim’s actions; court disapproved that statement)
- State v. Tyler, 251 Kan. 616 (Kan. 1992) (self-defense may be available when a reasonable person would mistake lawful actors as unlawful aggressors)
- State v. Plummer, 295 Kan. 156 (Kan. 2012) (four-step appellate framework for reviewing jury-instruction claims)
- State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541 (Kan. 2011) (harmless-error standard when a constitutional right is affected)
- State v. Torres, 294 Kan. 135 (Kan. 2012) (jury instructions must state the law as applied to the facts to avoid omission of essential legal language)
- State v. Walters, 284 Kan. 1 (Kan. 2007) (elements of a legally sufficient self-defense claim: subjective belief plus objective reasonableness)