In Jones-Nelson v. State,[1] the supreme court ruled the defendant is not required to introduce evidence of each element of self-defense before the defendant can introduce evidence of the victim’s prior acts of and reputation for violence. The defendant and the victim were attending the same party, and they got into an argument after the defendant accused the victim of being a snitch. The defendant later shot and killed the victim after a confrontation, although evidence conflicted as to whether the victim was acting aggressively toward the defendant before the shooting. At trial, the defendant sought to introduce evidence of the victim’s prior acts of and reputation for violence, but the trial court excluded the evidence because the defendant had yet to offer evidence of every element of self-defense. The defendant was convicted and, on appeal, argued he should have been allowed to introduce the victim’s prior acts of and reputation for violence through cross before supporting every element of self-defense. The supreme court ruled the trial court erred in not admitting the testimony about the victim’s prior acts of and reputation for violence even though the defendant had not yet provided evidence for each element of self-defense. In so ruling, the supreme court noted other foundational requirements still applied that could prevent the admission of this type of evidence. Additionally, when there are significant questions about whether the defendant will receive a self-defense instruction at the end of the trial, the trial judge can still regulate the order of proof in order to avoid prejudicing the jury. Before ultimately finding the error harmless and affirming the conviction, the supreme court ruled the defendant is not required to first introduce evidence of each element of self-defense before the defendant can introduce evidence of the victim’s prior acts of and reputation for violence.
[1] 446 P.3d 797 (Alaska 2019).
