## Facts

- In the early morning hours of November 23, 1986 (around 3:30 a.m.), Lloyd D. Clothier woke up after his dog began barking and snarling.
- Clothier got up, retrieved a revolver, and looked out a window toward his driveway.
- He saw a person reaching into his automobile parked in the driveway; the car window had been broken and the car door was open.
- Clothier testified he was frightened and concerned because his garage-door opener was in the car.
- Clothier fired one shot through the window, describing it as a warning shot and stating he did not intend to hurt anyone.
- He then saw someone run behind the car and across the yard; Clothier fired a second shot, testifying he aimed down at the ground to warn the person not to return.
- Clothier told his girlfriend to call the police and then went outside, where he found 15-year-old Seanan Picard injured on the driveway.
- Picard later died from a gunshot wound to the head.
- The State charged Clothier with involuntary manslaughter under K.S.A. 1987 Supp. 21-3404.
- At trial, Clothier admitted firing the shots but argued his conduct was justified as defense of his dwelling and/or his property.
- The district court instructed the jury using Kansas law (pattern-style instructions) on defense of a dwelling and defense of property other than a dwelling, requiring that the defendant both believe force was necessary and that the belief be reasonable.
- The State requested an additional instruction stating that deadly force in defense of property other than a dwelling is justified only when necessary to prevent an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm; the district court declined to give that added limitation.
- The jury acquitted Clothier, apparently accepting the defense-of-property theory.
- The State appealed on a Kansas “question reserved” to obtain guidance for future cases, without disturbing the acquittal, arguing the instructions were unconstitutional under Tennessee v. Garner.

## Issues

1. Whether jury instructions allowing deadly force in defense of a dwelling or property other than a dwelling—without expressly limiting deadly force to situations where human life or safety is imminently endangered—were unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment in light of Tennessee v. Garner.
2. Whether the district court erred under Kansas law by refusing the State’s requested additional instruction limiting deadly force in defense of property other than a dwelling to situations involving an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm.

## Decision

- The Kansas Supreme Court answered the reserved question against the State and approved the instructions given.
- The court held Tennessee v. Garner, which limits police use of deadly force under the Fourth Amendment, did not render Kansas justification instructions for private citizens unconstitutional.
- The court held the district court did not err in refusing to add the State’s proposed imminent-danger limitation to the defense-of-property-other-than-a-dwelling instruction.
- Clothier’s acquittal remained final and unchanged.

## Legal Principles

- Tennessee v. Garner addresses Fourth Amendment limits on government action (a police officer’s use of deadly force in making a seizure); it does not automatically set constitutional limits for state-law justification defenses available to private citizens.
- Kansas justification instructions on defense of a dwelling and defense of property may properly require two components: (1) the defendant’s belief that force was necessary, and (2) circumstances that would make that belief reasonable to an ordinary person.
- When a trial court’s instructions accurately reflect Kansas statutory law and approved pattern instructions, a court is not required to add restrictions the legislature has not included, even if those restrictions resemble constitutional standards applied to police conduct.
- A State appeal on a “question reserved” after an acquittal is used to settle legal questions for future prosecutions; it cannot overturn the defendant’s acquittal or result in retrial.

## Conclusion

State v. Clothier held that Kansas jury instructions on defense of a dwelling and defense of property, which required a reasonable belief in the necessity of force but did not add the State’s requested “imminent threat to life” limitation for deadly force, were a correct statement of Kansas law and were not made unconstitutional by Tennessee v. Garner, because Garner governs police conduct under the Fourth Amendment rather than private citizens’ justification defenses.


State v. Clothier, 753 P.2d 1267 (1988)