Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Temple police responded to a report that a Black man with a knife had threatened people at a shelter. Officer Koneferenisi Aumua saw Randall Jackson, III, who matched at least three of the four dispatched descriptors, and testified that Jackson began running after seeing his patrol vehicle. Aumua pursued him, and Officers Milton Parker and Travis Wolfe joined the chase. Parker used a taser after Jackson reportedly reached for something, but the taser missed or was ineffective.
Jackson then turned and fired toward the officers. Parker testified that the shot was “in my face,” while Wolfe said it passed close to his head. Officers returned fire, and Jackson barricaded himself in an unoccupied house before surrendering several hours later. A jury convicted him of aggravated assault against a public servant, and the trial court found an enhancement allegation true and sentenced him to twenty-five years in prison. Jackson appealed the trial court’s refusal to submit a self-defense instruction.
The Court’s Holding
The Third Court of Appeals held that Jackson was not entitled to a self-defense instruction because the evidence did not raise every required element of the defense. Because Jackson used deadly force against officers attempting to detain him, he needed evidence that, before he resisted, the officers used or attempted to use greater force than necessary and that deadly force was immediately necessary to protect him from their use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force.
Even when viewed in the light most favorable to Jackson, the evidence did not meet that threshold. The foot chase was not deadly or excessive force; the ineffective taser caused no demonstrated physical effect and was not shown to be greater force than necessary; and Aumua’s drawing of a handgun, without evidence that he aimed or attempted to fire it before Jackson shot, did not establish unlawful deadly force. Jackson’s stated fear that officers would later enter the house and kill him concerned events after he fired and therefore could not justify his earlier use of deadly force. The court affirmed the conviction.
Key Takeaways
- A defendant is entitled to a defensive instruction only when some evidence supports every element of the defense, even though the evidence may be weak or disputed.
- A person resisting a known peace officer must show that the officer used or attempted to use greater force than necessary before the person resisted.
- An ineffective taser deployment and an officer’s production of a handgun did not, on this record, constitute evidence that officers first used or attempted to use unlawful deadly force.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the evidentiary threshold for obtaining a self-defense instruction when a defendant uses deadly force against police. A defendant’s subjective fear is insufficient unless the record also contains evidence supporting the statutory prerequisites for resisting an officer, including that the officer first used or attempted to use excessive force.
The opinion also distinguishes a displayed weapon from the use or attempted use of deadly force. Without evidence that an officer aimed or otherwise attempted to use the firearm before the defendant fired, the defendant may not presume that the threatened use of force will escalate into unlawful deadly force.