State v. Juan Soler, 2016 R.I. LEXIS 101

Background

On Sept. 5, 2005 a street altercation between Juan Soler, his cousins (Roy and Lauriz Morillo), and Anstrom Paula resulted in Paula suffering head and other injuries and several broken car windows.
Prosecution witnesses (Paula and Amanda Perez) testified Soler exited a car, punched Paula, retrieved a baseball bat, smashed windows, and struck Paula repeatedly; they denied Paula had a knife.
Defense witnesses (Lauriz Morillo) testified Paula produced a knife and jabbed at the group; Morillo said Roy retrieved a bat, defendant later swept the bat and the bat struck or collided with Paula’s knife, Paula tripped, hit his head, dropped the knife, and Morillo then struck Paula.
Defendant was tried on two counts of felony assault (bat and shod foot) and one vandalism count; jury convicted Soler of felony assault with a bat and vandalism, acquitting on the shod-foot count.
At midtrial the court granted the state’s motion to preclude any self-defense argument and refused to give a self-defense jury instruction; defendant’s counsel earlier objected but after the charge stated “No exception.”
The Supreme Court held defendant preserved the issue, concluded there was a "scintilla" of evidence supporting self-defense (battery/contact via the bat striking the knife), vacated the felony-assault conviction, and remanded for further proceedings; the vandalism conviction was left intact (court declined to recognize self-defense as a justification for vandalism).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Preservation/waiver of objection to omission of self-defense instruction	State: defendant waived review by not objecting after final charge and by failing to specify assault vs. battery earlier	Soler: trial record contains repeated, timely objections and discussions; trial justice expressly noted defendant’s exception when ruling	Preserved. Court found repeated on-the-record discussion and explicit exception satisfied Rule 30’s purpose; appellate review allowed
Whether evidence warranted a self-defense instruction on felony assault/battery	State: no evidence defendant struck Paula; Morillo denied seeing contact between bat and Paula’s body so self-defense inapplicable	Soler: Morillo’s testimony that the bat collided with Paula’s knife supplies a scintilla of contact supporting battery and thus the self-defense hypothesis	Court: A self-defense instruction was required. Morillo’s testimony that the bat struck the knife provided a sufficient (though slight) evidentiary basis for battery/contact and thus for self-defense; assault conviction vacated and new trial ordered
Whether self-defense justified vandalism conviction	State: no established self-defense ground for vandalism	Soler: argued self-defense could justify acts underlying vandalism	Court: Declined to extend self-defense as a justification for vandalism under § 11-44-1; vandalism conviction stands
Whether trial court’s failure to allow closing argument reference to self-defense/effective assistance claim	State: trial judge reasonably precluded argument where no instruction warranted	Soler: exclusion of argument and instruction violated defense rights	Court: Because self-defense instruction was required for the assault/battery theory, exclusion of self-defense argument was erroneous as to that count; court did not separately decide ineffective assistance claim

Key Cases Cited

State v. Pineda, 13 A.3d 623 (R.I. 2011) (standard for de novo review of refusal to give self-defense instruction and scintilla test)
State v. Butler, 107 R.I. 489, 268 A.2d 433 (R.I. 1970) (even slight evidence of self-defense requires jury instruction)
State v. Martin, 68 A.3d 467 (R.I. 2013) (self-defense instruction warranted when record contains at least a scintilla of supporting evidence)
State v. McLaughlin, 621 A.2d 170 (R.I. 1993) (definition of battery and its elements)
Picard v. Barry Pontiac-Buick, Inc., 654 A.2d 690 (R.I. 1995) (offensive contact with object identified with a person can constitute battery)
State v. Albanese, 970 A.2d 1216 (R.I. 2009) (no distinction between civil and criminal battery elements)
State v. Linde, 876 A.2d 1115 (R.I. 2005) (force in self-defense limited to that reasonably necessary)
State v. Van Dongen, 132 A.3d 1070 (R.I. 2016) (self-defense legal principles)
State v. Urena, 899 A.2d 1281 (R.I. 2006) (self-defense and initial aggressor doctrine)
State v. Davis, 131 A.3d 679 (R.I. 2016) (discussion of preservation where instruction issue was raised on the record)