A Reno man convicted of second degree murder will get a new trial because his self-defense claim was unfairly restricted by the trial judge.
Ray Pineda was convicted of stabbing Julio Jimenez to death in a parking lot in December 1999. He testified Jimenez was mad at him and approached, threatening him. He warned the man to stop but a fight ensued in which Pineda stabbed the man to death.
He was convicted and sentenced to two life terms with possible parole but appealed on grounds District Judge Jerry Polaha didn't allow him a fair jury instruction to support his self-defense claim. He also argued he should have been allowed to present testimony from a gang expert on gang life and culture and how someone involved in gangs would have concluded he was in imminent danger from Jimenez.
All those involved in the situation were current or former gang members, including Pineda, who left a California gang two years earlier to move to Nevada.
The Nevada Supreme Court rejected other appeal issues but agreed the jury instruction was improper because it suggested he had to be in provable imminent danger of great personal injury to kill in self defense. The court pointed out it has previously ruled, "A reasonably perceived apparent danger as well as actual danger entitles a defendant to an instruction on self defense." The opinion says denying Pineda that instruction possibly prejudiced the jury and requires a new trial.
The opinion says Pineda is entitled to present evidence supporting his self-defense theory, including testimony from a gang expert who could support his claim that he had a right to feel as though his life was in danger even though he hadn't actually been threatened with a weapon.
