State v. Ouellette - 2012 ME 11, 37 A.3d 921

Rule:

A defendant may seek a self-defense instruction pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 17-A, § 108 for any charge that includes an intentional, knowing, or reckless state of mind as one of its elements. The crime of reckless conduct does include a reckless state of mind as an element, Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 17-A, § 211(1); Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 17-A, § 35(3) (2011) (defining recklessness), and self-defense may therefore be available to justify otherwise reckless conduct if generated by the evidence.

Facts:

Defendant Kenny L. Ouellette was charged with assault, and reckless conduct, stemming from an altercation with victim Mike Nadeau. During his jury trial, defendant asserted that he acted only in self-defense, and requested a jury instruction to that effect for both the assault and reckless conduct charges. Defendant testified that the victim’s vehicle crossed defendant’s path, and followed defendant right on his bumper. The victim and his passenger made obscene gestures toward defendant. When both vehicles stopped for a red light, the victim and his passenger jumped out of their vehicle and approached defendant’s vehicle. According to the defendant, he felt scared and threatened because they were two guys against one coming to jump him, especially since they already made threats to him over the phone. Thus, the defendant stated that he left his vehicle with a baseball bat and chased the victim, hit the victim on his wrist, swung the bat a few times without making contact with anything, and bashed a taillight, prior to driving away. Defendant then reported the incident to the police. Although the court granted defendant's request for a self-defense instruction as to the assault charge, it reasoned that the justification of self-defense was not applicable to a charge of reckless conduct. The jury found defendant guilty of reckless conduct, but not guilty of assault. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in declining to instruct the jurors that they could consider the justification of self-defense for the reckless conduct count.

Issue:

Did the trial court err in declining to instruct the jurors that they could consider the justification of self-defense for the reckless conduct count?

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The appellate court held the trial court's omission of the jury instructions was erroneous as defendant could seek a self-defense instruction pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 17-A, § 108 for any charge that included an intentional, knowing, or reckless state of mind as one of its elements. The jury could have found that defendant acted in justifiable non-deadly self-defense in acquitting him of assault. It also could have found him not guilty of reckless conduct on the same basis. Thus, the failure to instruct accordingly was not harmless. Accordingly, the judgment was vacated, and the matter was remanded for a new trial.