High court strengthens self-defense arguments in overturning murder conviction

The murder conviction in an alleged Las Vegas road-rage shooting was overturned on Monday by the Nevada Supreme Court.

Justices used the case to clarify and strengthen jury instructions when self-defense is claimed in a murder case.

Travis Earl Runion was convicted of murder in the October 1996 shooting.

The Supreme Court ruled that District Judge Joseph Pavlikowski was wrong in denying a jury instruction that points out self-defense is justified not only when actual danger can be proven but when the person acts because of apparent danger.

"By refusing Runion's proffered instruction on the grounds that his theory of defense was limited to actual danger, the district court precluded defense counsel from arguing apparent danger to the jury," the opinion states.

Runion testified he shot Josh Pendergraft and wounded Moses Companioni after a dispute between the occupants of that vehicle and himself at an intersection in Las Vegas. He said he thought they had pulled a gun on him and at least one witness testified shots were fired from both vehicles.

The case was further complicated when, after driver Stephen Goldman testified, he was overheard telling Companioni that, "I just lied my ass off in there."

The person who overheard that conversation was a member of the jury, who was removed from the panel and testified as to those comments.

The Supreme Court ruled that because the district judge illegally limited the defense arguments on self-defense and because of prejudicial comments by the prosecutor during final arguments, the verdict deserved to be thrown out.

And the high court took the opportunity to issue a new and stronger suggested jury instruction on self-defense. That suggested instruction states that, "Actual danger is not necessary to justify a killing in self-defense. A person has the right to defend from apparent danger to the same extent as he would from actual danger if:

"1. He is confronted by the appearance of imminent danger which arouses in his mind an honest belief and fear that he is about to be killed or suffer great bodily injury ..."

The new instruction concludes: "If evidence of self-defense is present, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense. If you find that the state has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense, you must find the defendant not guilty."