 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Warrington v. State2/13/2003
ively "defendants") defense to the Pecco murder charges was self-defense within a dwelling. Accordingly, the trial judge instructed the jury:
A defense raised in this case is justification.... The defense stems from the defendants' assertion that, at the time in question, their actions were justified. The elements of the defense of justification, in this case, are as follows: (1) That the defendants were in their own dwelling at the time of the incident. (2) That Mr. Pecco was intruder unlawfully in defendants' dwelling at the time of the incident. ... (3(b)) That the defendants reasonably believed that Mr. Pecco would inflict [personal] injury upon them. ...
In considering the [defendants'] reasonable belief ... you may consider whether a reasonable man in the defendants' circumstances would have reasonably believed that the intruder would inflict personal injury upon them. You should, however keep in mind, that it is the defendants' state of mind which is at issue here and that it is only required that they, in fact, believed the intruder would inflict personal injury upon them. If, after considering all the evidence to support the defense of justification, you find that such evidence raises a reasonable doubt in your minds as to the defendants' guilt, you should find the [defendants] not guilty of the crime charged.
At another point in the instruction, the judge clarified,
As to the justification defense of a person unlawfully in a dwelling, if you find Mr. Pecco an intruder unlawfully in the defendants' dwelling and if the defendant overcame Jesse Pecco so that the defendant no longer believed he was in danger of physical injury or personal injury , and therefore, the defendant knew the use of deadly force was no longer necessary, then the continued use of deadly force was not justified. In other words, if a person is initially justified in defending himself, but then knows that the danger to him has passed then the subsequent use of deadly force is not justified. (Emphasis added.)
The jury found both Drew and Wes guilty of murder in the first degree, possession of a deadly weapon during the commission of a felony, and conspiracy in the first degree.
Discussion
Delaware's statute defining self-defense within a dwelling provides:
In the prosecution of an occupant of a dwelling charged with killing or injuring an intruder who was unlawfully in said dwelling, it shall be a defense that the occupant was in the occupant's own dwelling at the time of the offense, and:
(1) The encounter between the occupant and intruder was sudden and unexpected, compelling the occupant to act instantly; or
(2) The occupant reasonably believed that the intruder would inflict personal injury upon the occupant or others in the dwelling; or
(3) The occupant demanded that the intruder disarm or surrender, and the intruder refused to do so. The question presented in this case is whether the reasonable belief that the intruder would inflict injury must be contemporaneous with the forceful actions taken against the intruder. Defendants contend that, once both intrusion and reasonable belief of danger have occurred, the rightful occupant of the dwelling has "license to slay the intruder" without considering whether the intruder has been disabled so as to no longer pose a threat.
The doctrine of self-defense within a dwelling differs from self-defense in other contexts. A defendant attacked outside her home must retreat rather than use deadly force, but inside her own dwelling she has no duty to retreat, even if she could do so with "complete safety." An early phrasing of this do
Page 1 2 3 Delaware Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|