## Facts

- Anthony J. Simon lived next door to Steffen Wong, and the relationship between them was hostile.
- Simon feared Wong and assumed, based on Wong’s ethnicity, that Wong was a martial-arts expert.
- During the incident, Simon fired shots at Wong and at neighbors Rickey and Brenda Douglas; police officers then arrived, and Simon also fired at the officers.
- The State charged Simon with two counts of aggravated assault arising from shooting at Wong and Rickey Douglas.
- At trial, Simon testified he was afraid of Wong and that Wong advanced toward him while cursing immediately before the shooting.
- A psychologist testified Simon was a psychological invalid with a mental condition that caused a distorted view of reality and led him to believe others were going to attack him.
- The trial court instructed the jury using Kansas PIK Crim. 54.17 language stating that a person is justified in using force in self-defense “to the extent it appears reasonable to him under the circumstances then existing.”
- The jury found Simon not guilty on both counts.
- The State appealed on a question reserved under K.S.A. 22-3602(b)(3), challenging whether the self-defense instruction improperly applied a subjective test.

## Issues

1. Under K.S.A. 21-3211, must a defendant’s justification for using force in self-defense be judged by an objective reasonable-person standard rather than by the defendant’s own personal belief alone?
2. Did the pattern self-defense instruction stating “to the extent it appears reasonable to him” misstate Kansas law by suggesting a subjective standard?

## Decision

- The court held that K.S.A. 21-3211 requires an objective component: the defendant must not only believe force is necessary, but that belief must be reasonable.
- The court concluded the PIK Crim. 54.17 phrasing (“appears reasonable to him”) was erroneous because it could be read to focus on the defendant’s subjective view without requiring objective reasonableness.
- Because the State did not make a timely trial objection, the court did not disturb the not-guilty verdicts; the appeal resolved the reserved legal question for future cases.

## Legal Principles

- K.S.A. 21-3211 justifies the use of force against an aggressor only when, and to the extent, it appears to the actor and the actor reasonably believes such force is necessary to defend against the aggressor’s imminent unlawful force.
- “Reasonably believes” includes an objective requirement: there must be facts that would persuade a reasonable person in the defendant’s position to hold the belief that force is necessary.
- A self-defense instruction that suggests justification turns solely on what “appeared reasonable” to the defendant, without conveying the objective reasonableness requirement, is a misstatement of Kansas self-defense law.
- In a prosecution appeal on a question reserved, the court may announce the governing rule for future guidance without affecting an acquittal when error was not properly preserved.

## Conclusion

State v. Simon holds that Kansas self-defense under K.S.A. 21-3211 is not satisfied by a defendant’s personal, subjective fear alone; the defendant’s belief that force is necessary must also be reasonable under an objective standard. Applying that rule, the Kansas Supreme Court found the pattern instruction’s “appears reasonable to him” wording incorrect because it could imply a purely subjective test, but the court left Simon’s acquittal intact due to the State’s failure to preserve the instructional error at trial.


State v. Simon, 646 P.2d 1119 (1982)