DELIBERATIONS UNDER WAY IN TUFFREE TRIAL : SIMI OFFICER KILLED LAST YEAR.

Byline: Michael Coit Daily News Staff Writer

The jury hearing Daniel Tuffree's murder trial began deliberating Wednesday after prosecutors concluded final arguments for a first-degree murder conviction in last year's killing of a Simi Valley police officer.

After three days of final arguments, the jury must now determine whether Tuffree is guilty of shooting Officer Michael Clark to death during a confrontation at Tuffree's home. The jury also must decide if the killing was intentional, which could bring the death penalty.

Deputy District Attorney Pete Kossoris spent several hours Wednesday attempting to rebut defense claims that Tuffree shot Clark in self-defense. Kossoris also took issue with defense contentions that Clark and two other officers provoked the fatal gunfight when they checked on Tuffree in response to a mental health worker's call.

``They would like to sweep as much blame as they can from their client and then dump it on everybody else,'' Kossoris said during his rebuttal argument.

Kossoris said Tuffree ``acted out of hate, revenge and anger'' for the police. In contrast, Kossoris said the police ``acted courageously and in good faith every step of the way.''

Tuffree stands indicted on a charge of intentionally murdering Clark as the officer performed his duties, which would make him eligible for the death penalty if convicted. Tuffree also was indicted for attempting to murder Officer Michael Pierce.

Tuffree's attorneys have urged the jury to return a verdict of voluntary manslaughter, contending Tuffree shot Clark in self-defense on the afternoon of Aug. 4 last year.

Deputy Public Defender Howard Asher said Tuffree grabbed his gun because he felt threatened when the officers entered his property with guns drawn. Asher said there is no evidence to counter Tuffree's claim, made in a tape-recorded interview, that Tuffree returned Clark's gunfire and never intended to kill him.

Prosecutors charge that Tuffree held a grudge against the police for once confiscating the same handgun he used to shoot Clark. They contend Tuffree wasn't fearful but rather angry when the officers came to his home, and took time to barricade the front door and prepare for a gunfight.

Kossoris said there is ample testimony from neighbors and Pierce to show Tuffree ambushed Clark, and he reminded jurors that Tuffree said in the interview he raised and pointed his gun at the officer.

``The defendant was the assailant. He pointed the gun at Officer Clark,'' Kossoris said. ``You would have to think that Officer Clark was a pretty lousy shot if he had the draw on the defendant.''

Clark was the first officer who went to Tuffree's home. The mental health worker who called the police was contacted by a case worker for Tuffree's mental health group, who said Tuffree demanded more Valium than prescribed and could be using both the drug and alcohol.

``All this gave them legitimate cause to be concerned,'' Kossoris said of the officers.

Tuffree's public defenders contend the officers provoked the shooting, entering Tuffree's property with guns drawn and refusing to leave after Tuffree told Clark he wanted to be left alone. They said there was no medical emergency requiring the officers to remain.

Kossoris countered that the officers were not intrusive and could not be reassured by Tuffree's behavior. He said Clark's death was a result of Tuffree's ``murderous, malicious, homicidal conduct'' and not because the officers acted improperly.

``Is this something you would not like the police to be doing?'' Kossoris asked the jury.