United States v. Toledo, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 240

Defendant Dhanzasikam R. Toledo (Navajo) stabbed and killed his uncle Arvin Toledo on November 10, 2011, on adjoining parcels separated by a five-strand barbed-wire fence on Navajo Nation land.
Arvin, a much larger man who had been drinking (BAC 0.123), approached the fence, used racial slurs, and came close to Toledo; Toledo testified Arvin lunged with hands up and he feared being grabbed or pulled over the fence.
Toledo carried a concealed 12-inch knife in his sleeve and admitted he could have retreated but said his immediate reaction was defensive; other witnesses contested how substantial the fence barrier was.
Indicted for second‑degree murder in federal court, Toledo requested jury instructions on self‑defense and involuntary (imperfect self‑defense) manslaughter; the district court refused those instructions and charged second‑degree murder and voluntary manslaughter only.
Jury acquitted on second‑degree murder, convicted on voluntary manslaughter; Toledo appealed, arguing the evidence warranted self‑defense and involuntary manslaughter instructions.
The Tenth Circuit reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding the evidence—crediting defendant’s testimony and other testimony about Arvin’s violence—was sufficient to require both instructions so a jury could resolve credibility/factual disputes.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence warranted a self‑defense instruction	Prosecution: evidence insufficient; defendant’s fear unsupported except by his testimony and alternatives (retreat) existed	Toledo: his testimony and witness evidence of Arvin’s violence/alcohol and the perceived lunge supported a reasonable belief deadly force was necessary	Court: Reversed — defendant was entitled to a self‑defense instruction because his testimony (credited) and other evidence could support a reasonable belief of imminent serious harm
Whether evidence warranted an involuntary (imperfect self‑defense) manslaughter instruction	Prosecution: no evidence fairly tending to support criminal negligence separate from murder/voluntary manslaughter	Toledo: even if not reasonable, his actions could be criminally negligent (imperfect self‑defense), so a lesser‑included instruction was appropriate	Court: Reversed — evidence could support imperfect self‑defense/involuntary manslaughter; jury must decide

United States v. Platte, 401 F.3d 1176 (10th Cir. 2005) (standard for reviewing jury instructions)
United States v. Harris, 695 F.3d 1125 (10th Cir. 2012) (defendant entitled to instruction when evidence could support defense)
United States v. Visinaiz, 428 F.3d 1300 (10th Cir. 2005) (self‑defense requires reasonable belief of imminent death/great bodily harm)
United States v. Gresher, 802 F.2d 373 (10th Cir. 1986) (self‑defense principles)
United States v. Benally, 146 F.3d 1232 (10th Cir. 1998) (court must give full credence to defendant’s testimony when assessing instruction sufficiency)
United States v. Brown, 287 F.3d 965 (10th Cir. 2002) (standards for lesser‑included offense instructions; imperfect self‑defense)
United States v. Scout, 112 F.3d 955 (8th Cir. 1997) (burden of production for self‑defense instruction not onerous)
United States v. Wood, 207 F.3d 1222 (10th Cir. 2000) (definition of gross negligence for involuntary manslaughter)