State v. Worsham

Where a term’s legal meaning differs from common usage, an instruction may be necessary. Because it was here, it was plain error to fail to instruct the jury on the limits and elements of the defense.

The defendant claimed the complainant impaled himself on the defendant’s knife. The defendant argued self-defense, the state focused on the “initial aggressor” exception. The state failed to request an instruction on the meaning of “initial aggressor,” yet the defendant did not object. The jury convicted the defendant of second-degree assault. The defendant assigned error to the failure to instruct on the meaning of “initial aggressor.” He argued that the initial aggressor is a legal term of art which refers to the first person to employ hostile physical force, and that it was plain error to allow the jury to decide based on the colloquial use of the words. The state asserted that jurors had an understanding of the legal term sufficient to convict. Where a term’s legal meaning differs from common usage, an instruction may be necessary. It is plain error to fail to instruct the jury on the limits and elements of a defense. The court reasoned that without a proper instruction on this important term of art to an asserted defense, a jury could improperly conclude on the meaning of “initial aggressor” when making their findings. The court held the error was plain, not harmless, and reversed the conviction.