385 P.3d 561
Mont.2016Background
- Justin King and David Colaprete were transient acquaintances at a Missoula homeless camp; tensions rose after disputed property/theft and verbal abuse.
- On October 17, 2013, an altercation occurred in which King struck Colaprete repeatedly with a metal object; Colaprete received head stitches and staples and called 911.
- King was arrested the next day after admitting to hitting a person with a pipe; he did not tell police he acted in self-defense at the time of arrest.
- The State charged King with felony Assault with a Weapon; King pled not guilty and notified the court he would rely on the affirmative defense of justifiable use of force.
- Trial testimony conflicted: King claimed he feared Colaprete was about to use a knife and that Colaprete grabbed him; Colaprete denied threats, denied being armed, and said he was trying to deescalate.
- At trial the court gave Instruction 23 (no duty to retreat if lawfully in place and threatened) and Instruction 25(a) (aggressor who provokes force is not entitled to self‑defense unless force is so great he reasonably believes he is in imminent danger and has exhausted other means). King objected, arguing the instructions conflicted; the jury found him guilty of felony assault with a weapon.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court properly instructed jury on justifiable use of force given conflicting testimony | State: Both instructions were supported by the evidence; jury should decide credibility and which legal theory fits. | King: Instruction 25(a) conflicts with Instruction 23 and effectively imposes a duty to retreat, misstating the law. | Court affirmed: both instructions were supported by the evidence and not conflicting when viewed together; presenting both was proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Erickson, 377 Mont. 84, 338 P.3d 598 (trial judge must instruct jury on every issue supported by evidence)
- State v. Hudson, 327 Mont. 286, 114 P.3d 210 (inference-based support for instructions)
- Bohrer v. Clark, 180 Mont. 233, 590 P.2d 117 (reversible error to give conflicting instructions on a material issue)
- State v. Robbins, 292 Mont. 23, 971 P.2d 359 (duty to accurately state applicable law via instructions)
- State v. Thorp, 356 Mont. 150, 231 P.3d 1096 (credibility determinations are for the jury)