Background
William Barlett and his girlfriend, Brittanie R., who was 30 weeks pregnant with their second child, got into an argument over disciplining their 3-year-old daughter. The verbal altercation escalated on the front porch of their shared home. Brittanie testified that Barlett grabbed her by the throat, shoved her against an exterior door, and held her there, causing pain to her neck and spine. When Brittanie tried to record the incident with her phone, a struggle ensued.
During the struggle for the phone, Brittanie attempted to burn Barlett with her cigarette to get him away. Barlett eventually took the phone, deleted two videos, and then returned it. After Barlett fell asleep, Brittanie took their daughter and drove to the sheriff’s office to report the assault. A deputy observed and photographed marks on her neck and arm. Barlett was later arrested and, in an interview, admitted to a “shoving match” and putting his hand on Brittanie’s neck to “calm her down.”
At trial, Barlett testified in his own defense, claiming Brittanie was the initial aggressor, shoving him four times. He stated he lost his balance and grabbed her to stabilize himself, unintentionally placing his hand on her throat area while trying to regain control of the situation. The jury found Barlett guilty of third-degree domestic assault on a pregnant woman but acquitted him of attempted strangulation.
The Court’s Holding
The Nebraska Court of Appeals affirmed Barlett’s conviction, rejecting his arguments on appeal. Barlett’s primary claim was that the trial court erred by refusing to give the jury an instruction on self-defense. The appellate court found that the evidence did not support such an instruction. Self-defense requires a belief that force is immediately necessary for self-protection. However, Barlett’s own testimony characterized his actions as either accidental (losing his balance) or intended to “calm her down,” rather than to defend himself from an attack. Because his testimony did not align with the legal requirements for self-defense, the trial court was correct to deny the instruction.
Barlett also argued that his trial counsel was ineffective, first for failing to request a jury instruction on the lesser-included offense of attempted third-degree domestic assault, and second for failing to elicit testimony that would have supported a self-defense instruction. The court dismissed both claims. It held that the evidence showed a completed assault, not a mere attempt, so there was no rational basis for an instruction on the lesser offense. Furthermore, the court found that Barlett’s attorney did, in fact, elicit testimony about Brittanie allegedly being the initial aggressor and other details Barlett claimed were missing. Since the underlying evidence, particularly Barlett’s own account, did not support a self-defense theory, counsel was not deficient.
Key Takeaways
- A defendant is not entitled to a self-defense jury instruction if their own testimony attributes their actions to an accident or a purpose other than protection from unlawful force.
- To successfully claim self-defense in Nebraska, a defendant must show they had a reasonable and good-faith belief that using force was immediately necessary to protect themselves under the circumstances.
- A lawyer’s failure to request a jury instruction on a lesser-included offense is not considered ineffective assistance of counsel if the evidence does not provide a rational basis for a jury to acquit on the greater offense while convicting on the lesser one.
Why It Matters
This case serves as a sharp reminder of the strict evidentiary foundation required to assert an affirmative defense like self-defense. The court’s analysis highlights that a defendant’s own testimony can be the biggest obstacle to such a defense. By claiming his physical contact with the victim was unintentional or meant to de-escalate, Barlett effectively testified himself out of a self-defense claim, which requires an intentional use of force for a specific, protective purpose. The opinion underscores that inconsistent defense theories—arguing an act was both accidental and justifiably forceful—are unlikely to succeed.
For legal practitioners, this decision emphasizes the critical importance of aligning the defense’s theory of the case with all the evidence, especially the defendant’s own account of events. It illustrates that a trial court is not required to instruct a jury on a defense theory that is not supported by a legally cognizable version of the facts, even if there is evidence of aggression by the victim.