Who is responsible?

Today, 11:27 AM #17

MLeake wrote:

Hook686, re: your case study -

He was charged. But, was he indicted? Convicted? What was the outcome?

And if convicted, was it appealed? Case law is determined at the appellate level, I believe, not at the trial court level; and definitely not at the charging level.
Click to expand...


from:

http://law.justia.com/cases/california/calapp2d/167/39.html

The information charged defendant in two counts, the first alleging assault with a deadly weapon upon one Wallis, a felony, in violation of section 245, Penal Code; and the second, the murder of one Lela Glenn, as defined in section 187. Acquitting him on the first count, the jury on the second count found defendant guilty of manslaughter, a lesser but necessarily included offense in that of murder.
Click to expand...

note: Wallis was the guy that assaulted defendant with a knife, who was subsequently hit across the head by defendant with his gun.

...

A careful examination of the record convinces us that there exists no inconsistency in the verdicts, the evidence is sufficient to support the conviction of manslaughter and the jury was justified in returning such a verdict.

For the foregoing reasons the judgment and order denying motion for new trial are and each is affirmed.

White, P. J., and Fourt, J., concurred.
Click to expand...


Even without all the legal trappings, I think this is a very costly undertaking, and one cetainly to be avoided if at all possible. However here it seems to me that Wallis initiated the assault with a knife, yet the defendant was found guilty of the resulting death, even though he was merely defending himself from a lethal assault. Be careful out there.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the link, Hook686.

I'm not a lawyer, but as I read the decision, it seemed to me the appellate court had focused on, and by suggestion so had the trial court, the fact that the defendant was not licensed to carry the weapon, and that the act of bringing a loaded gun into a tavern was unlawful and careless on his part.

It also read like his using a loaded gun as a bludgeon in a crowded enviroment met their standard for negligence.

I wonder if he'd have been better off using the gun as a gun, and shooting the guy with the knife...
 
And just for a little general legal background:

[1] An information is a charge filed by the District Attorney. It's not always necessary, depending on state law, to seek an indictment from a grand jury. An information works just as well.

[2] A conviction of manslaughter indicates that the jury didn't find that the defendant acted with malice (evil) intent, but it is a finding of criminal culpability. A verdict of manslaughter is common if the jury finds that the defendant acted impulsively in the heat of the moment or acted recklessly.

[3] It appears that in the case Hook686 called to our attention that the jury verdict was appealed and that the verdict was upheld by the court of appeals.

[4] Note that legal expenses through a jury trial can easily run from $50,000 to $150,000, or even more. And an appeal doesn't come cheap either.
 
Buzz....Seattle, well nothing surprises me in Seattle (I live in Okanogan county which might as well be a different country), but still, state law is such that a home invasion may be met by any means available (including deadly force) RCW 9A.16,050(2) (current version since 1975) (BTW: Home invasion is a felony)

And...as the other guy had the weapon...this also applies

RCW 9.41.270(3)(c) (c) Any person acting for the purpose of protecting himself or herself against the use of presently threatened unlawful force by another, or for the purpose of protecting another against the use of such unlawful force by a third person

As your friend is dead, "I guess we will never know the rest of the story"?
 
I wonder if he'd have been better off using the gun as a gun, and shooting the guy with the knife...
Click to expand...

Me too. Another one of those one in a billion cases. This case is more than 50 years old. I don't imagine it happens very often.
 
Perhaps.However no matter what jurisdiction, ones fate is in the hands of the jury.Is it really one in a billion ? I doubt it. The taking of a life is a homicide here in California. The Handgun Guide put out by the Att. Gen. Office here indicates one is expected to take a beat down rather than drawing a weapon.
 
Hook686 said:
The taking of a life is a homicide here in California.
Click to expand...
The taking of a human life is a homicide everywhere ... that's what the word means. But not all homicides are criminal homicides. A self-defense shooting is a "justifiable homicide." As forum member Fiddletown (a California attorney) has explained more than twice, if you are charged in a shooting and you use self-defense as your legal defense, you put yourself in a somewhat unique situation. The prosecution no longer needs to prove that you perpetrated the act. By claiming self defense, you start out by admitting that you shot the guy ... but then you go on to claim that it was a legally justified homicide because the guy was shot (by you) in the act of committing a felony against you.
 
There is another level below "justifiable," which is called "excusable". As I understand it, this is when the situation turns out not to have actually justified the homicide, but a reasonable person, with the same knowledge, in the same situation would have thought justified.

I am not sure what jurisdictions use this distinction, or what a good example for the cutoff would be.
 
The prosecution no longer needs to prove that you perpetrated the act. By claiming self defense, you start out by admitting that you shot the guy ... but then you go on to claim that it was a legally justified homicide because the guy was shot (by you) in the act of committing a felony against you.
Click to expand...

Yup the prosector no longer needs to prove you done it. Now you gotta prove it was the other guy committing a justifiable felony ... not just claiming it was a justifiable felony, but proving it. Not always easy to do and always costly.

As MLeak points out it comes down to those jurors deciding what is reasonable, excusable, justifiable .... In San Francisco I suspect the same facts would be decided differently than in Dallas.
 
Last edited:
Hook686 said:
Yup the prosecytor no longer needs to prove you done it. Now you gotta prove it was the other guy committing a justifiable felony ... not just claiming it was a justifiable felony, but proving it. Not always easy to do and always costly.
Click to expand...
I don't think there is any such thing as a "justifiable felony."

A self-defense homicide becomes justifiable because the laws that start out saying it is not legal to kill another person then tack on some specific exceptions, such as "Except if that person is assaulting you" or "Except if you kill the person because you are in fear of immediate death or serious bodily harm."

So a self-defense homicide doesn't become a felony unless the jury doesn't accept your claim that it was justified as an act of self-defense. If I employ lethal force in self-defense against a felonious assault, why would I wish to prove that the assailant was justified in assaulting me ... and on what basis could an unprovoked assault possibly be proven to be a "justifiable felony"?

Under the laws of most states, in claiming self-defense as justification for a homicide you don't necessarily have to prove that the assailant was committing a felony. It helps if you can show that, but the operative language in the laws of those states I have read (which is less than half of them) are fairly consistent in intent (if not in specific language). The justification for a self-defense homicide is that you were in fear of death or serious bodily injury. Legally, the jury is supposed to subject this claim to a "reasonable man test." In other words, you claim you were in fear for your life -- would some hypothetical, reasonable man likely be in fear of losing his hypothetical life if he were in the same situation? So the key factor is not whether the other guy's actions were or were not legally felonious, but simply whether or not you legitimately feared that he was going to kill you.
 
In a California CCW class I attend a case study is used. Essentially a guy carrying a handgun with one in the pipe goes into a bar. Some other guy takes issue with this guy and assaults him. The guy with the gun, in defending himself, draws it and wacks the assauter across the head. The gun dischages and kills a little old lady walking down the opposite side of the street from the bar. The guy with the gun was charged with murder.
Click to expand...

Escalating a fist fight to a deadly weapon rarely ends well.

In some states fists are NOT considered deadly in and of themselves absent any other disparity of force.
 
brickeyee said:
In a California CCW class I attend a case study is used. Essentially a guy carrying a handgun with one in the pipe goes into a bar. Some other guy takes issue with this guy and assaults him. The guy with the gun, in defending himself, draws it and wacks the assauter across the head. The gun dischages and kills a little old lady walking down the opposite side of the street from the bar. The guy with the gun was charged with murder.
Click to expand...
Escalating a fist fight to a deadly weapon rarely ends well.

In some states fists are NOT considered deadly in and of themselves absent any other disparity of force.
Click to expand...
The assailant had a knife. A knife is a deadly weapon in any jurisdiction.

I agree with MLeake. If assaulted by someone wielding a knife, it's better to use your gun as a firearm than as a club.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top