Alaska Criminal Pattern Jury Instructions
Controlled Substances
11.81.340 Justification: Use of Force in Defense of Third Person

§ 11.81.340 Justification: Use of Force in Defense of Third Person

A defendant is justified in using force upon another person when and to the extent the defendant reasonably believes it is necessary to defend a third person when, under the circumstances as the defendant reasonably believed them to be, the third person would have been justified in using that degree of force for self-defense.

Unless the state has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in defense of a third person, you shall find the defendant not guilty.

USE NOTE

This instruction must be given together with instructions 11.81.330 (use of nondeadly force in self-defense) or 11.81.335 (use of deadly force in self-defense), as appropriate.

The following term is defined in another instruction:

“force” – 11.81.900(b)

In determining whether a jury instruction on defense of a third party must be given, the same “some evidence” standard applies as with respect to self-defense. David v. State, 698 P.2d 1233 (Alaska App. 1985). See also Use Notes to Pattern Instructions 11.81.330 and 11.81.335.

The definition of “force” in AS 11.81.900(b) includes actual bodily impact, restraint, or confinement, as well as the threat of imminent bodily impact, restraint, or confinement. Thus, defense of a third party may apply where a defendant reasonably perceived a threat of harm, so long as the perceived harm was imminent. See Ha v. State, 892 P.2d 184, 194 (Alaska App. 1995) (in context of self-defense).

The reasonableness of a defendant’s beliefs must be evaluated by the jury based on the circumstances of the situation facing the defendant, including any relevant knowledge the defendant had about the other person; physical attributes of all persons involved (including the defendant); and any prior experiences that could provide a reasonable basis for the defendant’s beliefs. See Ha v. State, 892 P.2d 184, 194-95 (Alaska App. 1995) (in context of self-defense). A defendant’s distorted perceptions due to mental illness, however, may not be a factor in evaluating the reasonableness of the defendant’s beliefs. Id. at 195-96.

This pattern instruction may require slight modification when a defendant claims that an act of defense of a third party was prompted by the danger posed by a group of attackers, and not just the danger posed by the alleged victim named in the charging document. Under such circumstances, the defendant is entitled to have the jury assess the defendant’s actions in light of the total danger posed (or apparently posed) by the group. Allen v. State, 51 P.3d 949, 958-59 (Alaska App. 2002) (in context of self-defense).

 

[230628]