AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Defendant, his girlfriend, the Victim, and the Victim's girlfriend were friends involved in the use and sale of prescription drugs. After staying with the Victim and his girlfriend, the Defendant and his girlfriend moved to a motel. The Victim and his girlfriend, experiencing drug withdrawal, visited them to ask for money or drugs, leading to an argument and the Defendant stabbing the Victim, who later died from the injury. The Defendant was charged with second-degree murder and tampering with evidence (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the failure to instruct on defense of habitation and defense of another was a fundamental error, the State did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not act in self-defense, and the district court erred by allowing cross-examination with certain prior convictions (para 1).
• Appellee (State): Contended that the Defendant was not entitled to defense of habitation or defense of another jury instructions, the evidence presented was sufficient to prove the Defendant did not act in self-defense, and the district court did not commit plain error by permitting cross-examination of the Defendant on his 1986 and 1988 convictions (paras 9, 21, 24).

Legal Issues

• Whether the failure to instruct on defense of habitation and defense of another constituted fundamental error.
• Whether the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant did not act in self-defense.
• Whether the district court erred by permitting the State to cross-examine the Defendant with certain prior convictions.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction of the Defendant for second-degree murder (para 1).

Reasons

• The Court, per Judge Vanzi, with Judges Attrep and Zamora concurring, held that:
  The Defendant was not entitled to jury instructions on defense of habitation or defense of another because the evidence did not support a reasonable belief that a violent felony was immediately at hand or that there was an appearance of immediate danger of death or great bodily harm to another (paras 10-20).
  There was sufficient evidence to support the conviction, as the jury could have reasonably determined that the Defendant was not acting in self-defense based on the conflicting testimonies and the circumstances of the altercation (paras 21-23).
  There was no plain error in allowing the State to impeach the Defendant with his prior convictions during cross-examination, as the convictions were less than ten years old from the date of release, and the district court could have found them probative given the importance of witness credibility in the case (paras 24-28).