## Facts

- Robert Saunders’s brother, James Saunders, became involved in multiple fights outside a Beckley, West Virginia nightclub.
- During an altercation, witnesses described James being wrestled to the ground and restrained in a full nelson by Brian Kincannon with Phillip Kincannon’s assistance.
- Testimony indicated James was being searched for a weapon and that threats were made to kill him.
- Robert Saunders, observing his brother restrained and fearing death or serious bodily injury to James, retrieved a handgun from a nearby car.
- Saunders fired a warning shot over the group and then fired a shot he said was intended for Phillip Kincannon’s leg; the bullet struck Kincannon in the buttocks.
- Phillip Kincannon later bled to death from the gunshot wound.
- Saunders was convicted of first-degree murder in the Circuit Court of Raleigh County, with a recommendation of mercy.
- At trial, Saunders requested a defense-of-another instruction; the court refused a correct instruction and instead gave an instruction the appellate court characterized as confusing and incorrect.

## Issues

1. Whether a defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on defense of another when evidence supports that theory as an extension of self-defense.
2. Whether confusing, misleading, or legally incorrect jury instructions that obscure a central defense require reversal.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial.
- The court held that West Virginia recognizes the right to use force in defense of another, including a brother or a stranger.
- The court held that the validity of a defense-of-another claim, like self-defense, is for the jury to decide when supported by evidence.
- The court concluded that the trial court’s failure to give a proper defense-of-another instruction, combined with the confusing instruction given, was reversible error.

## Legal Principles

- The right of self-defense may be exercised in behalf of another person, including a brother or a stranger.
- When evidence supports defense of another, the defendant is entitled to an instruction that accurately states the law and permits the jury to consider that defense.
- Instructions in a criminal case that are confusing, misleading, or incorrectly state the law should not be given.
- Whether defense of another applies on the facts is a jury question when there is evidence from which a reasonable juror could find the elements satisfied.

## Conclusion

The court ordered a new trial because the evidence supported a defense-of-another theory, yet the jury was not properly instructed on that defense and was given a confusing, incorrect instruction that prevented meaningful consideration of Saunders’s central justification.


State v. Saunders, 175 W. Va. 16, 330 S.E.2d 674 (W. Va. 1985)