what state of mind do you speak of?
The shooter's state of mind--
mens rea. If the defendent has ever done, said, or writtten something to indicate that he might have been predisposed to killing, thought killing would be to his advantage, thought killing to be a good idea, it will not work to his advantage in a
defense of justifiability. Unless the facts of the case are clearly supportive of the shooter's claim (empty cases all over from the decedent's weapon, for example), the prosecutor will be looking for anything that might indicate a criminal state of mind on the part of the shooter.
How does the shooter's statement that he feared for his life and shot back become evidence that the shooter was predisposed to kill?
It does not, not at all. However, statements such as "first you have to make sure that the bad guy cannot testify against you....And best of all, no witnesses" could sure sound pretty bad to the charging authority, grand jury if there is one, and/or trial court jury. That could be the determining factor for the defendant.
What crime are you talking about? Perhaps the attempted robbery/assualt by the intruder?
No, the crime of murder, probably manslaughter, committed by the shooter. The shooter has shot someone. Ordinarily that
would be a crime. It is only if he can successfully mount an
affirmative defense showing that the shooting was legally justified, that he will not be considered guilty of a crime.
How is this [(your admission that you did the deed)] detrimental to the shooter?
It denies you the defense of trying to argue that you did not do it, or that it was an accident, and puts all of the stakes on a defense of justifiability.
The shooter did claim justification by claiming self defense. The ball is in their court to prove the opposite. If it comes to to trial it is up to prosecutors to prove your intent to kill and not the claimed self defense.
Close, but no cigar.
Think for a moment. If a shooter's claim were sufficient, how many homicides would ever be successfully prosecuted? Do you think "I feared for my life" will suffice?
Here's something written by attorney for attorneys who may have to take on a self defense case (there aren't that many who would know where to start):
http://www.nacdl.org/public.nsf/01c1e7698280d20385256d0b00789923/f587d7d10c34fff2852572b90069bc3c?OpenDocument&Click=
Study it all.
Here are some excerpts.
Yes, the burden of proof is on the prosecution. But the client is not home free:
Many assumptions about trial tactics are inverted in a self-defense case. If the defendant presents some evidence on each of the elements of self-defense, then he or she is entitled to a jury instruction on the issue, which places the burden of proof squarely on the prosecutor to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. If the prosecution fails to disprove self-defense, the client is acquitted. In practice, however, the defense attorney has a great deal of work to do in order to convince the jurors that the client’s conduct fell within the common law of self-defense or within applicable state statutes.
I spoke of the need for evidence for the defense:
At a minimum,
the defense must include some evidence, generally viewed in the light most favorable to the defense,
on each of these factors in order to receive an appropriate jury instruction:
The client had reasonable grounds to believe he or she was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm. Heated words, vague threats, and the possibility of future harm are not enough. The harm must be serious and imminent.
The client actually believed that he or she, or a third person, was in such imminent danger. Establishing this subjective belief often requires the client to testify.
The danger was such that the client could only save himself or herself by the use of deadly force. Some states do not require the defendant to retreat, even if he or she can do so safely.
The client had to use no more force than was necessary in all the circumstances of the case.
Given that, one more time, do you really think that simply saying "I feared for my life" and letting it go at that will suffice?
I also mentioned evidence that the prosecution will likely bring to bear:
Once the attorney has settled on a self-defense strategy, he or she will need to think about what facts should be established and challenged in order to successfully defend the case. There will be some facts which the prosecution and police investigators believe are inconsistent with self-defense. Counsel will have to wrestle with these facts and be able to explain to the jury why they do not disqualify the client from self-defense.
There will be the forensic evidence, indicating, for example the distance at which the shots were taken, and perhaps witness testimony that does not seem to support the defendant's story. Hopefully, there will be no internet postings to the effect that a shooter would be better off with the decedent out of the way and unable to testify.
