## Facts

- Bruce Dwight Watkins and Kenneth Gardner fought at a third person’s home in Montgomery County, Maryland.
- During the altercation, Watkins stabbed Gardner multiple times, killing him.
- Witness testimony conflicted on initiation and escalation:
  - Multiple witnesses indicated Watkins was the initial aggressor, but only at a nondeadly level.
  - Watkins claimed Gardner attacked with a knife and that Gardner was stabbed during a struggle over the weapon.
- The trial court instructed that a person attacked may use appropriate force in self-defense, but that an aggressor is not entitled to claim self-defense.
- Watkins requested an additional instruction that a person who starts a nondeadly affray may still act in self-defense if the other party escalates to deadly force; the trial court refused.
- A jury convicted Watkins of second-degree murder.

## Issues

1. Whether a defendant who may have initiated nondeadly aggression is entitled to a jury instruction that self-defense (including imperfect self-defense) remains available if the opponent escalates the conflict to deadly force.
2. Whether refusal to give that escalation instruction, where generated by the evidence, is reversible error.

## Decision

- The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland reversed the second-degree murder conviction and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held the trial court erred by giving only an unqualified “aggressor cannot claim self-defense” instruction.
- Because the evidence could support a finding that Watkins initiated only nondeadly force and that Gardner escalated to deadly force, Watkins was entitled to the requested instruction.
- The instructional error was prejudicial because it removed a legally available theory that could have led to acquittal (perfect self-defense) or mitigation (imperfect self-defense).

## Legal Principles

- An initial aggressor at a nondeadly level is not automatically barred from asserting self-defense if the adversary escalates the encounter to deadly force.
- When evidence supports a finding of escalation from nondeadly to deadly force, the jury must be instructed that self-defense may become available to the initial nondeadly aggressor, subject to ordinary requirements governing perception of danger and proportional response.
- Perfect self-defense fully exculpates when the defendant reasonably perceives and responds to deadly peril.
- Imperfect self-defense mitigates to manslaughter when the defendant honestly, but unreasonably, perceives deadly peril or responds with excessive force.
- Failure to instruct on a defense theory generated by the evidence constitutes reversible error when it may affect the verdict.

## Conclusion

The appellate court reversed and remanded because the jury was not instructed that a defendant who may have started a nondeadly confrontation can still invoke self-defense (perfect or imperfect) if the other participant escalates to deadly force, and the evidence supported that possibility.


Watkins v. State, 555 A.2d 1087 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1989)