self defense
As folks on this forum know, in addition to lecturing on the law and self defense, I have handled literally hundreds of self defense cases, both where self defense is an absolute, affirmative defense and where self defense plays a mitigating role. I have tried many self defense cases to juries, including murder cases. I also practice primarily in Minnesota, the jurisdiction
next door to where this incident took place, so I am familiar with MN law. I am not so familiar with Texas law, but then we don’t use Texas law much here. I do some work in WI with local counsel, but let’s pretend this was MN.
I always stress that there are really two things to remember:
1. reasonableness
2. every case is unique on its facts
Self defense cases are highly fact specific. All sorts of factors need to be taken into account. The jury will hear the facts. Then they will be instructed in the law. Since I do a Minnesota state court practice, here is an example of what they are given in MN:
CRIMJIG 7.05: "Self Defense--Causing Death."
No crime is committed when a person takes the life of another, even intentionally if Defendant's actions -- action is taken in resisting or preventing an offense which Defendant reasonably believes exposes the Defendant to death or great bodily harm.
In order for a killing to be justified for this reason three conditions must be met. First, the killing must have been done in the belief that it was necessary to avert death or great bodily harm. Second, the judgment of the Defendant as to the gravity of the peril to which he was exposed must have been reasonable under the circumstances. Third, Defendant's election to defend must have been such as a reasonable person would have made in light of the danger perceived and the existence of any alternative way of avoiding the peril. All three conditions must be met, but the State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant did not act in self defense.
CRIMJIG 7.06 SELF DEFENSE--DEATH NOT THE RESULT
Defendant is not guilty of a crime, if defendant used reasonable force against ______ to resist (or to aid ______ in resisting) an offense against the person, and such an offense was being committed or defendant reasonably believed that it was.
It is lawful for a person who is being assaulted and who has reasonable grounds to believe that bodily injury is about to be inflicted upon the person, to defend from such attack, and in doing so the person may use all force and means which the person believes to be reasonably necessary and which would appear to a reasonable person, in similar circumstances to be necessary to prevent the injury which appears to be imminent.
The kind and degree of force which a person may lawfully use in self-defense is limited by what a reasonable person in the same situation would believe to be necessary. Any use of force beyond that is regarded by the law as excessive.
* * * *
(The rule of self-defense does not authorize one to seek revenge or to take into his own hands the punishment of an offender.)
This is the bold outline, but of course the instructions are tailored to fit the specific case and circumstances. Obviously, all I know is what I read in the attached article – which may or may not be accurate. Oftentimes, the actual facts are different than even the initial investigation, much less the news media account of the initial investigation.
Having heard the testimony, with the instruction of law in hand, the jury has to decide. Basically, they are deciding if the defendant acted reasonably.
So – if this case was on my desk, things that would occur to me would include that Minnesota law includes consideration of a duty to retreat in the overall reasonableness analysis – but
not in cases occurring in your own home.
In addition, Minnesota case law in cases involving self defense in the home and the closely associated concept of defense of dwelling would be helpful in crafting an advantageous jury instruction.
For example see:
State v. Carothers
http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archive/supct/9906/c89886.htm
That case discusses some important concepts, including the use of deadly force in defending against commission of a felony in the home.
“The intentional taking of the life of another is not authorized by section 609.06, except when necessary in resisting or preventing an offense which the actor reasonably believes exposes the actor or another to great bodily harm or death, or preventing the commission of a felony in the actor's place of abode.” Minn. Stat. § 609.065.
Another useful case on self defense on the home is State v. Glowacki
Supreme Court
http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archive/supct/0107/c8991507.htm
On remand
http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archive/ctapun/0110/1507.htm
Original appeal
http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archive/ctappub/0007/c8991507.htm
Breaking in the door of an occupied dwelling with intent to commit a crime therein (in this case likely an assault) is a felony in Minnesota – so I would argue for an instruction in accord with that. The more interesting question is whether I was “lying in wait” and attempting to lure the decedent in, making it premeditated homicide rather than self defense.
Although I generally agree with Mr. White that most cases that sit in my office and say "it was self defense" are actually mutual combat, I would question that in this case. No matter how someone goads or taunts you, it is still likely on you if you go to their residence and break in the door with intent to assault them.
And the fact of the matter is – a case like this will run hundreds and hundreds of pages of investigative reports, at a minimum. Many homicides I have been involved in run over 10,000 pages, with one recent case in the 40-50,000 page range. Obviously, there are lots of facts we don’t know – and any of those could change the analysis or outcome.
