 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Johnson11/6/1997
self-defense, is limited to the use of reasonable force." . In the context of deadly force, "reasonable" means that the actor be in fear of proportionate harm or force against him. LaFave, supra, 5.7, at 649 (stating it is never reasonable to use deadly force against non-deadly attack). This Court recently affirmed a trial court's refusal to give a jury instruction on the use of deadly force in defense of others because "there was no evidence tending to satisfy the reasonableness prong of the deadly force test." . In Duarte, there was evidence that the defendant stabbed the victim during a fight arising out of an argument. Id. at 1. The court observed that " hether or not Defendant actually feared that the victim would inflict death or great bodily harm upon [Defendant's girlfriend], he was not entitled to the deadly force instruction unless there was some evidence that his fear was reasonable." Id. at 8. Given the lack of objective basis to fear harm from deadly force, the court ruled that the resort to deadly force was unreasonable as a matter of law. Id. at 10. This puts the use of deadly force by a private citizen in the protection of others on a parallel with the use of deadly force by law enforcement officers. The citizen is not given more latitude to use deadly force as Defendant would suggest for himself in this case.
{14} Similarly, in (quoting Leo M. Romero, Sufficiency of Provocation for Voluntary Manslaughter in New Mexico: Problems in Theory and Practice, 12 N.M. L. Rev. 747, 770 (1982)), our Supreme Court wrote that "the reasonableness of the defendant's conduct in killing'" is the key factor that makes a homicide justifiable. The Court went on to explain that " elf-defense is only a justification for a killing, and thus a lawful act, if all the elements necessary for self-defense are met. One requirement of self-defense is that the force used must be reasonable in relation to the threat." . If excessive force is exerted, the entire action becomes unlawful. Id.
{15} More recently, in , our Supreme Court held that to support an instruction on the defense of citizen's arrest to a criminal prosecution, "a defendant must produce evidence showing facts and circumstances within the defendant's personal knowledge (1) that would induce an objectively-reasonable person to believe . . . (4) that the defendant acted with reasonable force under the circumstances." The Court stressed it was adopting "a requirement that includes the objective-person standard in order to ensure good-faith, objectively-reasonable behavior." Id. at 18 n.3. Additionally, the Court stated categorically that such a standard was not designed to protect "vigilantism, which we define as unreasonable self- help action by citizens that tends to disrupt the administration of the criminal Justice system." Id. at 18. In discussing NMSA 1978, Section 30-16-23 (1965), an analogous statute authorizing a merchant's detention of shoplifters, the Court also noted that such a detention is lawful "if based upon probable cause and reasonable behavior." (emphasis added) (citing 30-16-23).
{16} Defendant claims that under Alaniz, 69 N.M. 164, 364 P.2d 1033, and , the reasonableness of his actions in using lethal force is always a question for the jury, regardless of the circumstances. We disagree. We agree that reasonableness in the use of force is generally a matter for the jury. But we do not read either Alaniz or Johnson as saying that reasonable force is always a jury question. See Alaniz, 69 N.M. at 167, 364 P.2d at 1035 (holding only that reasonableness in the use of force is "generally" a matter for the jury). Although the Johnson Court held under the facts of that case that the trial court's failure to issue a jury in
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 New Mexico Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|