Appellate attorneys spar over self-defense instruction in second-degree murder appeal

At oral argument in an appeal, defense counsel told the court the trial judge erred by refusing to give a jury instruction on self defense in a 2011 killing that was recorded on security video. The defendant was tried, acquitted of first‑degree murder and aggravated assault, convicted of second‑degree murder and sentenced to 25 years in prison.

The case turns on whether the evidence “fairly raised” the self‑defense issue so that the jury should have been instructed, counsel said, and on whether any failure to instruct was harmless error. Defense counsel argued the record—particularly the security video and the defendant’s testimony—supported the instruction; the state said the record showed the defendant had opportunities to retreat and that no rational jury could accept a self‑defense theory.

The facts presented at argument, as counsel described them, are: the defendant drove to the victim’s driveway after being told the victim had left a threatening voicemail for the defendant’s father. The security video shows the victim approach the defendant’s truck, an exchange, and then a pursuit. The defendant testified he retrieved a roughly 3‑foot steel ratchet bar from his truck and chased the victim because he feared the victim was going to get a gun. The two men then fought on a porch and on the ground. A witness, identified in the trial record as Ms. Henry, retrieved a gun, put it to the defendant’s head and pulled the trigger; the firearm misfired. The gun changed hands during the struggle and later was found near the victim. The victim died of injuries sustained in the fight.

“Because this entire episode is on the security video…we asked for a jury instruction on self defense,” defense counsel told the court, arguing the low “fairly raised” threshold for instructing jurors should have produced a self‑defense charge. Defense counsel also argued the record left unresolved whether the defendant reasonably believed he faced an imminent threat and whether he had time or knowledge to retreat.

Will Lundy, attorney for the State of Tennessee, told the court the video shows the defendant pursued the victim and had multiple chances to leave. Citing State v. Perrier as authority for resolving the threshold question whether the defendant was engaged in unlawful activity, Lundy said the trial judge and the appellate court should determine whether the self‑defense issue was properly raised. “No rational jury would have concluded based on this evidence…that this was a self defense,” Lundy said, urging the court to affirm the conviction.

Counsel argued over the applicable standard of review. The parties agreed the appellate court reviews whether the defense was fairly raised de novo, meaning the court may consider the entire record, including the video and witness testimony. The state characterized the event as roughly a 10‑minute sequence on video during which, the state said, the defendant repeatedly engaged and did not attempt to retreat.

The panel questioned counsel about timing and placement of conferences on jury instructions in the record and about when key moments occurred in the video. At the close of argument the panel said it would take the matter under advisement; no ruling was announced at argument.

The appeal focuses on legal questions about jury instructions and the duty to retreat rather than new factual development. The appellate court will consider the video evidence and the trial record in deciding whether the trial court’s omission was error and, if so, whether the error was harmless.