Justification - Self Defence Flashcards
Self-Defence
Use of deadly force, elements
U.S. v. Peterson
- Actual or apparent threat of the use of deadly force,
- Immediate and unlawful,
- Defendant honestly believed in imminent peril of death or serious bodily injury,
- Where such belief is objectively reasonable in light of the surrounding circumstance, and
- Such response is necessary to save oneself
- self defense is available when the actor believes defensive force is necessary
- if actor’s reasonable belief turns out to be mistaken, action isn’t justified but excused
NY Penal Law
35.15
- A person may use physical force upon another, when and to the extent HE REASONABLY BELIEVES such to be necessary to defend himself, or a third person from what he REASONABLY BELIEVES to be the use of IMMINENT unlawful physical force by such other person.
- A person MAY NOT use deadly force UNLESS
- He reasonably believes that such other person is using or is about to use deadly force, or
- He reasonably believes that such other person is committing or attempting to commit a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible sodomy or robbery,
NOTE. Reasonable man test, two parts
- Must subjectively be reasonable belief, and
- Must objectively be reasonable
People v. Goetz
Defining reasonableness with regards deadly force in self-defence, the following are in:
- Prior experiences of the defendant,
- Relevant knowledge that he defendant has of the victim,
- Physical attributes of all involved
HOWEVER
- Idiosyncratic racist beliefs ARE NOT permissable factors for consideration.
MPC 3.04(B)
Use of deadly force in self-defence
The use of deadly is not justifiable UNLESS the actor BELIEVES that such force is necessary to protect himself against, death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping or rape.
- Wholly subjective standard,
- All you need is the BELIEF that it was necessary under the MPC.
MPC 3.09(2)
If belief in deadly force was wrong
When the actor believes that the use of deadly force is necessary BUT he is RECKLESS or NEGLIGENT in having such belief, the justification of self defence IS UNAVAILABLE
- This is the reasonableness part of the MPC’s self-defence section.
- If you are unreasonable (reckless or negligent) in your belief that deadly force was necessary, the justification is UNAVAILABLE to you.
People v. Romero
Evidence establishing the role of “hispanic street fighter culture” is not objectively reasonable in evaluating whether defendants fear of death or serious physical injury was reasonable
State v. Kelly
Expert testimony on BWS is RELEVANT because it is related to Kelly’s claim of self-defence. Since she was abused by the victim for many years it was reasonable for her to believe that he would savagely attack her again when she stabbed him in self defence.
- Goes towards Kelly’s reasonableness in believing that deadly physical force was necessary and that she was facing imminent danger.
Three Stages of BWS:
- Tension building,
- Acute battering,
- Contrition and loving behaviour
Which disorders are relevant to reasonableness
(1) BWS,
(2) Battered partner syndrome,
(3) Holocaust syndrome,
(4) PTSD,
(5) Receptive brain trauma
- Yes,
- No,
- No, Warner v. State
- No,
- Maybe
Different jurisdictional approaches to BWS evidence
California
- Reasonable person with the defendants knowledge and in the same situation; NOT reasonable battered woman.
Missouri
- Reasonable person suffering from BWS how would they have perceived the sitation and reacted in view of their prolonged history of physical abuse?
North Dakota
- Assume the physical and psychological properties peculiar to the accused and then decide whether the particular circumstances were sufficient to create a reasonable belief that the use of force was necessary. This approach allows the jury to judge the reasonableness of the accuseds actions against the accused’s subjective impression of the need for force.
MPC 3.04(B)
Duty to retreat
The use of deadly force is not justifiable when:
- The actor KNOWS that he can avoid the necessity of using such force WITH COMPLETE SAFETY BY RETREATING or by surrendering possession of a thing to a person
* if you don’t know that you can retreat without getting hurt, don’t have to
State v. Abbott
The law imposes a duty to retreat when the defendant resorts to the use of deadly force. Deadly force for self defence purposes IS NOT JUSTIFIED WHEN:
- The actor KNOWS that he can avoid the necessity of using such force,
- WITH COMPLETE SAFETY by retreating
NY Penal Law 35.15(2)
A person may not use deadly physical force in self-defence when “HE KNOWS that with COMPLETE SAFETY TO ONESSELF AND OTHERS, that he may avoid the necessity of doing so by retreating. There is no duty to retreat when:
- He is in his dwelling AND NOT the initial aggressor,
- He is a police or a peace officer
English Rule v. American Rule
English Rule
- Common law traditional approach. A person could only use deadly force in self defence after exhausting every chance to flee, i.e. his back had to be to the wall.
Americal Rule
- The true man does not have to retreat, he can stand his ground and fight.
People v. Tomlins
A man assailed in his own dwelling is not bound to retreat. If assailed there HE MAY STAND HIS GROUND and resist attack. He is under no duty to take to the fields and the highways, a fugitive from his own home.
- Castle Doctrine
- Applies to intruders
- Vast majority also say guests,
- MPC endorses this view and also extends it to co-occupatns,
- Counter is State v. Shaw which says there is a duty to retreat from co-occupants.
State v. Smiley
A car IS NOT “your castle” and there IS a duty to retreat if assailed there. He should have driven away.
- Florida’s stand your ground law conflicts with this RoL.
