Background
Tyler Rice was charged with disorderly conduct and unlawful use of a facsimile firearm after confronting Stan about Stan’s alleged behavior toward neighborhood children. Stan testified that Rice entered his yard, pointed what appeared to be a real pistol at him, and told him to leave children alone. Police later determined that the weapon was an airsoft gun.
Rice gave a different account. He testified that Stan angrily threatened to kill him, lunged toward him, and reached toward his waistband, prompting Rice to draw the airsoft gun and point it toward Stan’s feet to defuse the situation. Rice said children were behind him and that he felt a need to protect himself and them. A 14-year-old eyewitness testified that Stan threatened to kill Rice and moved toward his waist, but the witness did not testify that Stan lunged.
The circuit court dismissed the facsimile-firearm charge after the State rested. It declined to instruct the jury on self-defense or defense of others, reasoning in part that Rice denied pointing the airsoft gun at Stan and that the defenses did not fit the alleged conduct. The jury convicted Rice of disorderly conduct.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals reversed. Assuming without deciding that self-defense and defense of others are available defenses to disorderly conduct, the court held that Rice presented the “some evidence” required to receive both instructions. A jury could reasonably interpret Rice’s act of drawing the airsoft gun after Stan allegedly threatened him and reached toward his waistband as a threat of force intended to protect Rice or the children, even if Rice did not point the gun directly at Stan.
The instructional error was not harmless. The evidence permitted different conclusions about whether Rice committed disorderly conduct before drawing the airsoft gun, and the record did not reveal which conduct formed the basis for the verdict. Because a properly instructed jury could have found that Rice acted in self-defense or defense of others, the court reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial.
Key Takeaways
- A defendant meets Wisconsin’s low threshold for a self-defense instruction by presenting “some evidence,” even if that evidence is weak, inconsistent, or disputed.
- Drawing a weapon can constitute a threat of force supporting self-defense or defense of others even when the defendant denies pointing it directly at another person.
- Omitting defense instructions was not harmless where the verdict did not disclose whether the jury relied on conduct occurring before or during the armed confrontation.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that judges may not weigh credibility when deciding whether the evidence warrants a self-defense or defense-of-others instruction. When a reasonable view of the evidence supports the defense, the jury must be allowed to consider it.
It also shows why harmless-error review can turn on uncertainty about the factual basis for a general verdict. Here, the prosecution relied on conduct both before and during Rice’s display of the airsoft gun, preventing the appellate court from concluding beyond a reasonable doubt that the omitted instructions did not affect the conviction.