Oh, It’s Just a Beating?

By Monte E. Hester; April 1999

     Traditionally, a defense of self-defense to an allegation of assault or murder has required the introduction of only slight evidence of self-defense at trial.  The issue of self-defense then goes to the JURY.  The State then has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not acting in self-defense.

     Unfortunately, the recent case of State v. Timothy Todd Walker, 966 P.2d 883 (Wash. 1998), a 5 to 4 decision, is so inconsistent with both existing case law and a defendant’s right to a jury trial that it is frightening.

     In Walker the defendant testified that he approached a guy to tell him to quit sleeping with his wife.  He armed himself with a knife in his back pocket because he was afraid the guy would attack him and kill him.  The guy did attack him and started beating him.  The defendant attempted to ward off the attack but the assailant persisted, pushing the defendant up against a car, causing the defendant to fear he was going to be killed.  Defendant took out his knife and stabbed the guy multiple times until he fell, thereafter dying from a severed aorta.

     Until now, this case would have gone to the jury on the issue of self-defense.  Not so in Cowlitz County.  The Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court apparently have decided that juries should not be able to decide the issue of self-defense. 

     The reasoning is both defiant of the doctrine of stare decisis and the right to a jury trial.

     The dissent in the case, Justice Madsen and those concurring with her, Justices Johnson, Alexander and Sanders, find fault with the trial judge, the Appellate Court judges and their Justice colleagues who voted with the majority.  They believe that permitting the trial judge to make a finding as a matter of law that “any reasonable person standing in the defendant’s shoes would have perceived that only ‘an ordinary battery is all that was intended,’ in which case the use of deadly force was unjustified” results in the denial of the defendant’s right to a jury trial.  I agree.

     Please read the case.  The majority tried to make a record of how they rationalized their decision, which effort doesn’t succeed, particularly in light of the clear and cogent comments of the dissent.  The majority left room for keeping a self-defense case alive if evidence is adduced that would reflect fear of death or severe injury.

     Obviously, the trial court, the appellate court and the Supreme Court need to be made aware of occurrences of the loss of eyes, fractured skulls, brain damage and other terrible results from a bare knuckle beating in assessing the reasonableness of  a fear of death or serious bodily harm.

     If the person being beaten follows the reasoning of the Walker decision, he can’t win.  He will either merely be beaten with less than serious injuries, receive serious injuries, die or be convicted of murder without the jury considering the issue of self-defense.

End