Criminal Law - 2021 Outline - Part 5

1. All states - ∆ must raise issue w/ production of evidence
2. Then ½ states: ∆ must prove defense w/ preponderance of evidence
3. OR ½ BOP of gov’t to disprove defense beyond reasonable doubt

• People v. Goetz - NY Ct App 1986 Reasonable person or reasonable ∆
  • 4 youths approach ∆, ask for money; he shoots them; paralyzes one; ∆ charged w/ attempted murder; issue of past robbery (PTSD)
  • Issue: is SD subjective or objective belief force is needed
  • Holding: In NY, it is the objective standard (but jury can use surrounding circumstances of ∆ to determine if it is reasonable given those facts)
    • Hmm… is that not imposing a bit of a subjective standard?
• State v. Rupp - Iowa 1979 - No duty to retreat if it is life-threatening
  • Fight at bar, victim charges at ∆, shoots him and flees; history of bad blood and threats bt two
  • Issue: did trial ct err in not including that ∆ doesn’t have duty to retreat if it involves a risk to his life? Court says YES. ∆ allowed to stand ground if risk
• Commonwealth v. Shaffer - MA Sup. Ct. 1975 - Duty to Retreat
  • Fiancé shot by wife (∆); he threatened her and the kids; she shot when he came down stairs
  • Issue: she wants MA to apply stand your ground rule: if not, she says she retreated to the wall (but she could have called 911, left thru basement door, he had no weapon, she was experienced w/ it)
  • No castle doctrine in this case bc cohabitants
  • Note: opinion notes location increasingly imp. 2 determine reasonability
  • Rule: sticks by no SD until availed self of all alternative ways to avoid
• State v. Pride - MO Ct. App. 1978
  • Victim robbed at truck stop; hands gun to man; he shoots at fleeing felons who shoot back (∆)
  • ∆ claims SD bc he was being shot at; court rejects this
• Battered Woman Syndrome | Bechtel v. State - OK 1992
  • Issue: should testimony of battered women’s syndrome be allowed
  • Reasonability and BWS: changes the standard bc she knows of the danger better than others (can see signs it’s coming); what is not normally overt show of violence can be to her; learned helplessness/psychological paralysis
  • What can an expert testify/not testify to?
    • She can testify that it is a real diagnosis; explain cycle of abuse; how it affects perception
    • What she cannot testify to: if the ∆ acted reasonably or not
  • Rule: court reverses decision, remands to be heard w/ testimony (and changes the reasonable person standard to add language relevant subjective to BWS- but doesn’t change anything)
  • Dissent: there doesn’t need to be any BWS testimony in this case bc this is typical self-defense; no change to language was needed for this case; if we are going to add that, the legislature should do it.
  • Prevailing view: no new defense w/ this case; just reemphasizes SD
  • Q: W/ BWS: does it apply against all ppl or just her abuser? Who else could get this treatment (PTSD/Holocaust syndrome?) Same case as Goetz?
• Self-Defense w/ Wrongful Arrest | People v. Cherry - NY Ct. App 1954
  • Right to self-defend against wrongful arrest: this court says YES.
  • Rule: if you believe it is an illegal arrest (even by uniformed officer) you can resist
    • At time, this was common law - but you had to be RIGHT ab the wrongful arrest
  • Now: Almost all courts say NO. Increases risk; if wrongful arrest, deal w/ it in court
    • Rule now: If reasonable person would believe if it is a police officer, you have no right to resist, even if it is an unreasonable arrest
      • EXCEPT: if excessive force- u can use force (ex=Floyd)
• State v. Fair - NJ 1965 - Defense of Others
  • Guy friend intervened; stabbed abusive bf; all were drunk
  • Issue: Did trial ct fail in failing to instruct on defense of others? “Yes.”

1. Alter ego: ∆ steps into shoes of the defended party
   1. 3d party has right if the assumed victim would have right
2. Objective test: intervening party is bound only to own intent (MPC)
   1. One who intervenes under a reasonable belief he is protecting another who he believes is being unlawfully assaulted is to be exonerated
   2. Encourages bystanders to intervene w/o threat of conviction
   3. Same subjective/objective test as SD but w/ 3d person instead of self

• Do everything you can before deadly force
• However, if escape is perilous, you can use deadly force

Castle Doctrine: One who, through no fault of his own, is attacked in his own home has no duty to retreat

• Can only be invoked by one w/ no fault (can’t be bc of a fight)
• Privilege of non-retreat from own property (exception to duty to retreat)
• Oftentimes extends past 4 corners of home (some states, your yard, others - porch)
• Intersection between defense of habitation and SD
• Not usually a thing when other person is cohabitant
• The felony doesn’t need to be forceful or atrocious (as it does typically w/ SD)

Stand your ground: No duty to retreat

• Aba has decided these laws increase homicides/don’t deter violent crimes
• Huge racial impact
• States are urged to repeal them (they don’t except when cops say to)
• Only against the offender (sill L if a bystander dies)

Cases:

• People v. Cebellos - Cal. 1974 - Trap Guns
  • Trap gun kills 16 yo burglar
  • Rule: only justified if they would have been justified to use SD if present