Appeals court hears dispute over self‑defense instruction in State v. Wiggins

The Washington Court of Appeals, Division I heard oral argument in State v. Wiggins on whether the trial court should have allowed a jury instruction on self‑defense in connection with a first‑degree felony‑murder charge predicated on robbery or attempted robbery.

Nancy Collins, defense counsel for Moses Wiggins, told the three‑judge panel that "defending one's own life is a basic right deeply rooted in our law," and argued the jury was not permitted to consider Wiggins's perspective fully. Collins said Wiggins testified he feared for his life and that the single act of force at issue could be understood as lawful self‑defense, not part of an intent to steal. She urged the court to allow the defense to have presented a coherent self‑defense instruction so the jury could resolve whether the defendant acted in self‑defense.

Stephanie Guthrie, senior deputy prosecuting attorney for King County, told the panel the instructions the trial court provided already allowed jurors to consider the defendant's version of events but maintained that "self defense is not a defense to robbery or attempted robbery." Guthrie argued that, under the state's theory, the unlawfulness of the taking turns on the use of force in the taking itself, and that the state's evidence showed the force at the time of the demand made the taking an attempted robbery. She also told the panel that recent precedent supports viewing attempted and completed robbery as closely connected—so not "alternative means" that would require special unanimity treatment—and that the prosecution's closing argument plainly elected attempted robbery as the basis for conviction, which the state said resolved any unanimity concern.

The panel asked multiple questions about the application of the "alternative‑means" analysis to attempted versus completed robbery, whether the predicate felony is effectively an element that jurors must unanimously agree on, and whether older authorities the parties cited remain good law after later clarifications by higher courts. Collins acknowledged she had not found a published case where a court authorized a self‑defense instruction for robbery or for felony murder predicated on robbery and emphasized that where there is a single act of force the jury should be able to evaluate the defendant's claim of self‑defense.

Argument concluded without an immediate ruling from the panel. The court took the matter under advisement; no decision was announced on the record.