Self-Defense Doctrines In Us Criminal Law
1. Overview of Self-Defense
Self-defense is a legal doctrine allowing a person to use reasonable force to protect themselves from imminent harm or threat. It’s both a justification defense (excuses what would otherwise be a crime) and subject to specific rules.
Key Elements of Self-Defense:
Imminent threat: The defendant must reasonably believe they face an immediate threat of harm.
Proportionality: The force used must be proportional to the threat.
Reasonable belief: The defendant’s belief in the threat must be objectively reasonable.
Duty to retreat: Varies by state; some require retreat if safely possible before using deadly force (minority), others follow “Stand Your Ground” laws (majority).
2. Types of Self-Defense
Non-deadly force: To prevent minor harm.
Deadly force: Only justified if the defendant reasonably believes death or serious bodily injury is imminent.
Defense of others: Similar principles apply if protecting a third party.
Castle Doctrine: No duty to retreat in one’s home.
Stand Your Ground: No duty to retreat anywhere lawful.
3. Key Case Law
Case 1: People v. Goetz (1986, New York Court of Appeals)
Facts:
Bernhard Goetz shot four men on a subway who he claimed were trying to rob him. He argued self-defense.
Legal Issue:
How to determine the reasonableness of belief in danger — subjective (defendant’s perspective) or objective (reasonable person standard)?
Held:
The court held the test was both subjective and objective. The defendant must honestly believe in imminent danger and that belief must be reasonable from an ordinary person’s standpoint.
Significance:
Established the combined subjective-objective standard in self-defense.
Clarified that fear must be both genuine and reasonable.
Case 2: Tennessee v. Garner (1985, U.S. Supreme Court)
Facts:
Police shot a fleeing suspect suspected of burglary. The suspect was unarmed and killed.
Legal Issue:
Is deadly force justified to prevent escape when the suspect poses no immediate threat?
Held:
Deadly force is not justified unless the officer has probable cause to believe the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious injury.
Significance:
Limited police use of deadly force.
Defined reasonableness and necessity in law enforcement self-defense.
Case 3: State v. Norman (1989, Oregon Supreme Court)
Facts:
Norman was charged with killing her abusive husband. She claimed self-defense due to imminent threat from ongoing domestic violence.
Legal Issue:
Can self-defense apply when the threat is not immediate but ongoing or cumulative?
Held:
The court recognized that a battered woman’s syndrome could affect reasonableness of perceived threat, allowing self-defense claims even if danger was not instantaneous.
Significance:
Introduced psychological context into self-defense.
Expanded traditional understanding of imminence in domestic violence cases.
Case 4: People v. Ceballos (1974, California Supreme Court)
Facts:
Ceballos shot an intruder fleeing his home. The intruder posed no immediate threat.
Legal Issue:
Is deadly force justified to prevent a fleeing suspect from escaping when the threat is no longer imminent?
Held:
No. Deadly force can only be used in defense when the threat is immediate; once the threat has passed, using deadly force is not justified.
Significance:
Reinforced the imminence requirement.
Deadly force cannot be used for mere property protection or after threat ceases.
Case 5: Brown v. United States (1921, U.S. Supreme Court)
Facts:
Brown shot and killed a man who attacked him in a dark alley.
Legal Issue:
When may a defendant use deadly force if they honestly believe they are about to be attacked?
Held:
The Court ruled that if a person is not the aggressor and honestly believes they face an imminent attack, they may use deadly force, even if the belief turns out to be mistaken, as long as it was reasonable.
Significance:
Affirmed that honest and reasonable belief can justify deadly force.
Supports the subjective-objective standard for self-defense.
4. Summary of Principles from Case Law
Self-defense requires an imminent threat of harm.
The belief in danger must be both honest and reasonable (Goetz, Brown).
Deadly force is only justified when facing death or serious injury, not mere property crimes (Ceballos).
Some cases expand the doctrine considering psychological factors (Norman).
Police have stricter standards for deadly force (Garner).
RELATED Blog
0 comments