Valentine v. State - Duty to Retreat

B

Bartholomew Roberts

Moderator
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12882441793748234986&q

In doing some legal research, I came across this case from 1979 in Texas. I think the case is a great example of why Stand Your Ground laws and Castle Doctrine are important laws. Here is the synopsis of the case straight from the appellate court:

The appellant testified in her behalf that during the early morning hours of July 20, 1974, she was awakened when her estranged husband, the deceased, began knocking on her trailer door and shouting obscenities. The appellant also testified that she knew the deceased to be a violent person and that he, on past occasions, administered to her general beatings with his fists and on two occasions stabbed her with a knife without provocation. She stated that immediately prior to the shooting, she was in fear for her life because the deceased threatened to kill her and attempted to enter the trailer by prying open the door from the outside at which time the appellant drew a .22 caliber pistol and from inside the trailer fired twice into the door. One of the bullets struck the deceased in the back of the head and killed him instantly.
Click to expand...

The woman was convicted of voluntary manslaughter and sentenced to 10 years (in TEXAS, in 1979!). The woman appealed on the grounds that the jury was given a duty to retreat instruction saying she had a duty to retreat from her trailer home if she could do so safely. The woman argued that because Texas common law at the time recognized some version of castle doctrine, she had no duty to retreat from her own home.

The appellate court upheld the conviction based on the law at that time saying

Next, the appellant contends that the trial court erred by instructing the jury, over timely objection, upon the law of "retreat." (See quote from the charge, supra.) The appellant argues that under Texas law, a person has no duty to retreat from his own home and therefore, the jury should not have been so instructed. We disagree. In Sternlight v. State, 540 S.W.2d 704 (Tex. Cr.App.1976), we noted that one of the most drastic changes made in the new Penal Code is that before deadly force may be used in self-defense the actor is required to retreat if a reasonable person in the actor's situation would have retreated. See also V.T.C.A., Penal Code, Section 9.32(2). We further noted in Sternlight that an instruction on the law of retreat requires the jury "in deciding the issue on self-defense to determine whether the [defendant] had the ability and opportunity to retreat considered as a part of all of the circumstances of the moment." Ibid. at 706. We concluded our discussion on this point by holding that an instruction on the law of retreat drafted in the language of the statute is sufficient. Our holding in Sternlight is in harmony with the Practice Commentary following Section 9.32, supra, which states:

"... A person ought to retreat, if he can do so safely, before taking human life; and because Texas law never imposed this duty, it is set out in Section 9.32(2). By measuring the existence and extent of the retreat obligation in terms of the ordinary person in the actor's situation, it is contemplated that the fact-finder will make a moral judgment on whether a defendant in a specific case ought to have retreated before threatening or using deadly force." Practice Commentary, V.T.C.A., Penal Code, Section 9.32.
Click to expand...

Fortunately, we are no longer imprisoning women for not running out of their own homes when a violent ex attempts to assault them in Texas; but this case gives an example of why SYG and Castle Doctrine were introduced as statute law and the real life consequences of repealing them.
 
Last edited:
I do think that she shouldn't have fired through the door. One of two things happened there. She either couldn't see the other side and decided to shoot through the door, which may have been a contributing factor in the court's decision, or she could see through the door and decided to shoot him in the back of the head, which isn't really a defensive act at all. I think this case was ruled correctly, regardless of which scenario happened.
 
She either couldn't see the other side and decided to shoot through the door, which may have been a contributing factor in the court's decision, or she could see through the door and decided to shoot him in the back of the head, which isn't really a defensive act at all. I think this case was ruled correctly, regardless of which scenario happened.
Click to expand...

So you feel a woman must wait for her assailant, who has already assaulted her in the past, to actually complete entry into her home before she can use lethal force in self defense? I don't know if I would agree with that. It wasn't as if he was knocking on the door loudly - according to the testimony the court cited he was "prying open the door from the outside" on a 1979 trailer home. Once he breaches that door, you don't have a great deal of space. If he has any kind of contact weapon and you've got a .22LR revolver, you might well die even after shooting him a few times.

In any case, I think there is still significant difference between saying "She should have waited until the door was fully breached" and saying what the court said here... which was basically that she should have run out of her own home instead of trying to defend herself with a pistol.
 
Duty to Retreat

Ever tried to retreat from a one bedroom trailer? Guys, they have one door. For the lady to retreat she would have had to go out the only door on the structure, that was occupied by her ex husband, trying to force entry, and by all accounts, he not there to visit. The lady was trapped. The lady could not see her target. Did she intend to shoot him, or discharge the revolver, in an attempt to "scare" her Ex off. Only the Good Lord and the lady have the answer to that question. Was justice served? What would you have done, with only seconds to make a decision? The woman probably saved her life using deadly force, against a known assailant, committing the felonious act of attempted burglary. Was she guilty? Not in my book. My wife and I live in the country, in Central Texas. Even if a 9-11 call were placed immediately, a first responder would take twenty to twenty-five minutes to reach our home. My wife and I will retreat to our bedroom with our cell phone, arm ourselves, and do what we have to do in such a case, just as the lady did! Would we be killers, or survivors, you be the judge...
 
A bullet to the BACK of the attacker's head is a major problem in the cited case.

We often answer our opponents' false claims that Castle Doctrine and SYG laws are unfettered licenses to kill by pointing out that they are built around reasonable presumptions, but that those presumptions are subject to rebuttal.

Duty to retreat does not automatically mean "run out of her own home" - it can be as simple as doing what you can to avoid killing a person. In the cited case, it would have been very much in the woman's favor if she had shot through the door earlier or later, when her attacker was actively engaged in trying to break in and was facing the door.
 
So you feel a woman must wait for her assailant, who has already assaulted her in the past, to actually complete entry into her home before she can use lethal force in self defense?
Click to expand...

Here in Vermont, that is my understanding of the current law...

I have no idea how Texas would have handled it in 1979...
 
In NC and here in NH, you must wait for the door to be breached before using deadly force. Spend the time while the bad guy is wrecking the door dialing 911 with one hand while holding the firearm in the other. You do not have to retreat, but you must be immediately threatened.

I have an ex-son-in-law who is now a felon for shooting through a door at the individual who intended to do him harm in NC. If he had taken the advice above his life would be much simpler today.

Best of luck,

Wes
 
A bullet to the BACK of the attacker's head is a major problem in the cited case.
Click to expand...

It surely didn't help her case but it isn't unusual for someone to turn or flinch at the last second when they see a gun pointing at them. Plus if you are in a single-wide trailer and omeone is forcing the door, it isn't as if you would be standing directly in front of the door. You'd likely be off to one side. And generally, shooting through the door is a bad idea.

However, guilt or innocence not withstanding - take a look at what that Texas appellate court was saying at that time - that you have a duty to retreat in your own home, even when faced with a violent attacker who has previously attacked you attempting forcible and unlawful entry.

When people attack SYG or Castle Doctrine, they are talking about moving the law back in that direction.
 
I understand that she couldn't have fled the trailer. I still think that this is no different than Biden's advice to blast a shotgun through a closed door. It isn't very smart, and it is also illegal in a lot of states. That being said, I'm thinking that the duty to retreat here would be her shooting the man before it was necessary.
 
I remember the advice of the local LEO's back in the day when I was little, and my mother was recently divorced. We were on our own living in a trailer house way out in the sticks. They told her not to shoot though the door. If the person crossed the threshold then she could legaly shoot. If they forced entry, and were inside deadly force could be used. (Note the trailer we lived in had one door. The windows were beyond tiny. A todler would not have been able to get through them.) This was around 1979 or 80.
 
The jury instructions in the Texas case seem mild and generic compared to the stringent standards for retreat in some states.

"Therefore, even if you believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant, Lucille Valentine, did shoot, [the deceased] with a gun, as alleged, but you further believe from the evidence, or you have a reasonable doubt thereof, that, at the time she did so, the defendant reasonably believed that [the deceased] was using or attempting to use unlawful deadly force against her and that she reasonably believed that the use of force and the degree of force used were immediately necessary to protect herself against [the deceased's] use or attempted use of deadly force, and that a reasonable person in the defendant's situation would not have retreated, you will find the defendant not guilty."
Click to expand...

Nevertheless, the fact that the instructions regarding retreat were generic actually highlights their subjectivity and the need for more certainty that Castle Doctrine and SYG laws provide.
 
NH Pilot said:
In NC and here in NH, you must wait for the door to be breached before using deadly force. Spend the time while the bad guy is wrecking the door dialing 911 with one hand while holding the firearm in the other. You do not have to retreat, but you must be immediately threatened.
Click to expand...

Regarding NC law, the Castle Doctrine law enacted in 2011 covers both before and after entry. § 14-51.2(b)(1) allows the use of deadly force when "The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a home, motor vehicle, or workplace."

Strangely, the pre-2011 law had a lower standard for shooting through a door to prevent entry than for shooting an attacker who was already inside a home. § 14-51.1(a)(i) [repealed in 2011] allowed deadly force to prevent entry "if the occupant reasonably apprehends that the intruder may kill or inflict serious bodily harm to the occupant." The state-approved concealed carry training manual at that time summed up the old law:

North Carolina law does not allow deadly force against an intruder after the illegal entry has been completed unless the intruder is imminently threatening death, serious injury, or sexual assault. Deadly force to prevent entry does not automatically allow deadly force against anyone unlawfully inside a home.
Click to expand...

Yes, the old law was strange and the advice at that time was to shoot before the attacker got inside.
 
gc70, I would assume the rationale was that once inside the home, the intruder would show via actions whether intent was to inflict bodily harm, or to just take stuff and leave. OTOH, during the forced entry, the occupant has no idea.

I am not saying I agree with the previous standard, but I suspect that was its intent.
 
From the appellate court decision:

In Sternlight v. State, 540 S.W.2d 704 (Tex. Cr.App.1976), we noted that one of the most drastic changes made in the new Penal Code is that before deadly force may be used in self-defense the actor is required to retreat if a reasonable person in the actor's situation would have retreated.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, I didn't see the part I bolded in the jury instruction. Realistically, what hypothetical "reasonable person" would try to retreat inside a trailer when a violent assailant is in the act of bashing in the door?

Too bad a few of us weren't on that jury.
 
MLeake, I suspect you are correct about the intent of the former NC law and I liked it in comparison to the laws I had grown up with. The state in which I grew up was in the "don't shoot until they're inside" camp and the standing joke in that state was to be sure that an intruder did not stagger outside to die.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top