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. There are really two things to remember:
1. Reasonableness
2. Every case is unique on its facts
I posted some ideas about this on THR a while ago, and am re-posting much of that along with some additional comments. I intend this as educational rather than legal advice, of course.
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 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.)
I have been on TFL recently – after surfing for years, I am one of the THR “refugees” realizing the wisdom of maintaining two “homes” in the event of service issues such as those that have been plaguing THR recently. I posted in another thread regarding a series of posts in several threads that purport to give erroneous “advice” regarding the law and self-defense. These posts appear to contain a cut of a portion of a MO statute that deals with self-defense. You can find and read a more complete version of the MO statute here:
http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/chapters/chap563.htm
That gives an idea of what the statute reads like - I don't promise that it is the latest, revised edition, simply an exemplar.
Frankly, MO is lucky to have an attorney expert in self defense law and 2nd Amendment issues: Kevin L. Jamison. If you are a MO CCW or, like I do, travel there, do yourselves a favor and avail yourself of his advice rather than trusting your judgment in life or death matters to Internet trolls.
http://www.wmsa.net/Books/Missouri_Law.htm
While I don’t practice in MO, I have lectured and consulted there. In MO, a sample jury instruction might look like this:
In order for a person lawfully to use force in self-defense, she must reasonably believe she is in imminent danger of harm from the other person. She need not be in actual danger but she must have a reasonable belief that she is in such danger.
If she has such a belief, she is then permitted to use that amount of force that she reasonably believes to be necessary to protect herself.
But a person is not permitted to use deadly force, that is, force that she knows will create a substantial risk of causing death or serious physical injury, unless she reasonably believes she is in imminent danger of (death) (or) (serious physical injury) (or) (forcible rape) (or) (forcible sodomy) (or) kidnapping).
And, even then, a person may use deadly force only if she reasonably believes the use of such force is necessary to protect herself.
As used in this instruction, the term "reasonable belief" means a belief based on reasonable grounds, that is, grounds that could lead a reasonable person in the same situation to the same belief. (This particular pattern instruction also deals with battered women’s syndrome/prior abuse as how they may affect perception of reasonableness; both MN and MO allow expert testimony on this syndrome).
1. Reasonableness
2. Every case is unique on its facts
I posted some ideas about this on THR a while ago, and am re-posting much of that along with some additional comments. I intend this as educational rather than legal advice, of course.
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 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.)
I have been on TFL recently – after surfing for years, I am one of the THR “refugees” realizing the wisdom of maintaining two “homes” in the event of service issues such as those that have been plaguing THR recently. I posted in another thread regarding a series of posts in several threads that purport to give erroneous “advice” regarding the law and self-defense. These posts appear to contain a cut of a portion of a MO statute that deals with self-defense. You can find and read a more complete version of the MO statute here:
http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/chapters/chap563.htm
That gives an idea of what the statute reads like - I don't promise that it is the latest, revised edition, simply an exemplar.
Frankly, MO is lucky to have an attorney expert in self defense law and 2nd Amendment issues: Kevin L. Jamison. If you are a MO CCW or, like I do, travel there, do yourselves a favor and avail yourself of his advice rather than trusting your judgment in life or death matters to Internet trolls.
http://www.wmsa.net/Books/Missouri_Law.htm
While I don’t practice in MO, I have lectured and consulted there. In MO, a sample jury instruction might look like this:
In order for a person lawfully to use force in self-defense, she must reasonably believe she is in imminent danger of harm from the other person. She need not be in actual danger but she must have a reasonable belief that she is in such danger.
If she has such a belief, she is then permitted to use that amount of force that she reasonably believes to be necessary to protect herself.
But a person is not permitted to use deadly force, that is, force that she knows will create a substantial risk of causing death or serious physical injury, unless she reasonably believes she is in imminent danger of (death) (or) (serious physical injury) (or) (forcible rape) (or) (forcible sodomy) (or) kidnapping).
And, even then, a person may use deadly force only if she reasonably believes the use of such force is necessary to protect herself.
As used in this instruction, the term "reasonable belief" means a belief based on reasonable grounds, that is, grounds that could lead a reasonable person in the same situation to the same belief. (This particular pattern instruction also deals with battered women’s syndrome/prior abuse as how they may affect perception of reasonableness; both MN and MO allow expert testimony on this syndrome).