## Facts

- Jesus Salas and Luis Badillo drove to a convenience store; Badillo went inside while Salas stayed in the driver’s seat.
- Sergio Burgeon approached Salas at the car and asked whether Salas wanted to buy a revolver.
- Badillo returned, entered the passenger seat, and was confronted on the passenger side by Eddie Bustamante, who argued with Badillo and struck him in the face.
- Salas put the car in reverse and began backing away from the confrontation.
- Bustamante threw a beer can that hit the windshield as the car moved away.
- Salas (the State’s eyewitness) testified that Burgeon then drew a gun and fired about three shots at the car; one shot struck Badillo in the head and killed him.
- Burgeon, Bustamante, and another witness (Luis Talavera) gave a different account: as the car backed up, Badillo pulled a gun and pointed it toward Bustamante (and, according to Burgeon, toward Burgeon as well), and Burgeon fired because he believed Badillo was about to shoot him.
- Burgeon did not know Badillo before the incident, though Badillo allegedly had a history of violent, gang-related conduct.
- Burgeon claimed self-defense and sought to introduce (1) evidence of Badillo’s specific prior violent acts and (2) evidence of Badillo’s violent character or reputation, to support the defense theory that Badillo was the aggressor.
- The district court denied the defense motions to admit that victim-violence evidence, and the jury convicted Burgeon of second-degree murder with use of a deadly weapon.

## Issues

1. Did the district court err by excluding evidence of the victim’s specific prior violent acts offered to show the victim was the likely aggressor and to support self-defense?
2. Did the district court err by excluding evidence of the victim’s violent character or reputation where the defendant did not know the victim before the incident?
3. Did the district court commit reversible error in its self-defense instructions (including by refusing defense-proposed instructions)?

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Nevada affirmed the judgment of conviction.
- The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding specific-act evidence of the victim’s prior violence where the defendant did not know the victim and the proffer was aimed at proving the victim’s conduct in conformity with a violent disposition (i.e., that he was the probable aggressor), rather than showing the defendant’s reasonable apprehension based on knowledge of those acts.
- The court further concluded that the defense did not preserve a detailed record of the excluded evidence through an adequate, specific offer of proof, which also weighed against reversal.
- The court rejected the instructional challenge, concluding that the self-defense instructions, considered together, adequately stated the governing law and did not mislead the jury.

## Legal Principles

- In a self-defense case, evidence of a victim’s specific prior violent acts is generally admissible only for a limited purpose: to show the defendant’s state of mind (reasonable fear or apprehension) when the defendant knew of those acts at the time of the homicide.
- Specific prior acts of violence are not admitted simply to prove that the victim acted in conformity with a violent character and therefore was the likely aggressor in the charged encounter.
- When a party claims error from the exclusion of evidence, the party must preserve the point for appellate review with a sufficiently specific offer of proof describing what the evidence would show and why it is admissible.
- A trial court has discretion over the wording of nonpattern jury instructions; refusal to give a requested instruction is not reversible error when the instructions as a whole correctly state the law and allow the defendant to present the defense theory.

## Conclusion

The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed Burgeon’s conviction for second-degree murder with use of a deadly weapon, holding that the trial court properly excluded evidence of the victim’s prior violent acts and violent character where Burgeon did not know the victim and the proffer sought to show the victim was the aggressor, and further holding that the self-defense instructions, read as a whole, adequately informed the jury of Nevada law.


Burgeon v. State, 714 P.2d 576 (1986)