United States v. Ronald Peppers
697 F.3d 1217
9th Cir.2012Background
- Officers attempted to apprehend Peppers at his mother’s trailer on Oct 17, 2010; Peppers bit a federal agent during arrest.
- Arrest followed discovery of Peppers sleeping on a couch in a dark trailer; an unloaded shotgun was reportedly under the mother’s bed.
- Peppers was indicted for felon in possession of a firearm (dismissed at government’s case-in-chief) and assault on a federal officer.
- Peppers testified that he believed he was resisting violent attackers, not law enforcement, due to darkness and inability to identify officers.
- District court proposed jury instructions outlining elements of assault on a federal officer and self-defense; Peppers objected and asked for Ninth Circuit model instructions.
- Jury found Peppers guilty on the assault charge; Peppers appealed on the jury instruction framework and burden of proof on self-defense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether instructions properly stated the government’s burden on self-defense | Peppers argues Pierre requires reversal for lacking self-defense burden | Government asserts burden was properly stated | No reversible error; instructions adequately stated burden on self-defense |
| Whether district court properly framed the absence of self-defense as a defense within instruction | Peppers contends court de-emphasized self-defense burden | Court had latitude to tailor instructions; no abuse | No reversible error; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether failure to follow model instructions necessitates reversal | Pierre controlled; district ignored model instructions | District court may tailor; substantial latitude exists | Not reversible; no material impact on verdict |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Pierre, 254 F.3d 872 (9th Cir. 2001) (distinguishes burden-of-proof on self-defense when instructions omit only part of the defense)
- United States v. McKittrick, 142 F.3d 1170 (9th Cir. 1998) (standard of review for jury instructions and burden of proof)
- United States v. Knapp, 120 F.3d 928 (9th Cir. 1997) (de novo review of jury instructions; substantial latitude to district courts)
- United States v. Marsh, 26 F.3d 1496 (9th Cir. 1994) (district court latitude to tailor jury instructions)
- United States v. Powell, 955 F.2d 1206 (9th Cir. 1992) (instructions reviewed for abuse of discretion; fair coverage of issues)
- Du v. Allstate Ins. Co., 681 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir. 2012) (formulation of instructions; substantial latitude to tailor)