Murder Defense – Justifiable Homicide in Self-Defense or Defense of Another
This is an interesting concept because certainly, if someone's charged with murder and they were trying to defend themselves during whatever incident led to the killing, they can claim self-defense.
What they're saying here with this jury instruction, which is what a jury would get in a murder case where someone's claiming self-defense, is that the murder was justified because the person was acting in self-defense.
This is CALCRIM 505 Jury Instructions having to do with the killing of another in self-defense is justifiable and not unlawful when the person who does the killing actually and reasonably believes the two elements that they have to show the defense to use this defense in a murder case.
Imminent Danger Of Great Bodily Injury
Number one is that there is imminent danger that the other person will either kill them or cause them great bodily injury. So, that means somebody has to be doing something to you that could kill you or cause you some serious physical injury — like coming at you with a knife or pulling a gun out about to shoot you. Then, you could use deadly force to defend yourself.
That's why we're seeing all these cases where the police are coming to scenes, and they're dealing with people who have gone crazy and have weapons in their hands. That is a recipe for disaster. So, when the police tell somebody to put the knife down, and they don't do it and they come towards them, then the police shoot them, and it's captured on video, and people are saying, why are the police shooting people with knives?
The question becomes, what are the police supposed to do? Let the person come and stab them? They've got a deadly weapon in their hand. They've got a gun.
Right now, the law will protect that type of behavior, but if you're a citizen and you're shooting somebody who has a gun or a knife or a bat, sometimes you can do it, and sometimes you can't. So, that's this element here. There has to be some imminent danger here.
Then you start to get into the issue of what if you caused the problem with the other person and the other person reacted to something that you did that was unlawful? Then they got out a weapon, and then you end up shooting them. You might have a problem there.
Necessary Act Under the Circumstances
The second element as far as the killing being justifiable is that it is necessary under the circumstances for them to use in self-defense force or means that might cause the death of the other person to avoid death or great bodily injury to themself.
That means that you also have to show that you're trying to prevent yourself from being killed or injured in some extremely serious manner. So, when the jury evaluates this and the prosecutors and defense attorneys argue these types of cases, they will be considering what was going on at the time.
If somebody pushes you or punches you and you whip out a gun and shoot them, that's an extreme example of going way too far. It has to be reasonable under the circumstances.
But if somebody — and I've seen these cases and have defended these cases — if somebody is getting the better of another person in a fight and they're getting to the point where that other person could be seriously injured or killed because the other person is just so much more dominant in the fight.
Then, one person pulls out a knife and stabs the other person; that is a possibility of having self-defense in that case, again depending on the circumstances — who started the fight and what the whole scenario is that is going on. So, that's the second element.
Also, the jury instruction is put there in order to help the prosecutors when they argue the case that a bear fear of death or great bodily injury is not sufficient to justify a homicide. This means you won't be able to use that defense just because you fear it if it's not reasonable under the circumstances, and an objective person wouldn't fear death or great bodily injury.
Used No More Force Than Reasonable
It goes on to say that to justify taking the life of another in self-defense, the circumstances must be such as would excite the fears of a reasonable person placed in a similar situation, and the party killing must act under the influence of those fears alone.
So, see, they're looking at what a reasonable person would think. Would they be scared? And you can't all of a sudden snap an hour later and go and kill the person. It has to be at the time that it's occurring.
It also indicated in the jury instruction that the danger must be apparent, present, immediate, and instantly dealt with or must so appear at the time to the slayer as a reasonable person. The killing must be done under a well-founded belief that it is necessary to save oneself from death or great bodily injury.
So, you have to do the killing or violent act to protect yourself at the time that everything's going on. You can't get angry later and go and kill the person and then try to justify the killing, saying that they did a bunch of dangerous stuff to me, so I was just responding to that. You have to respond at the time.
When you start to look at these defenses to murder cases, you can see that they're based on reasonableness—on what a reasonable person would do under the circumstances, not what some person would do under the circumstances.
Not what someone who's under the influence of methamphetamine would do under the circumstances. It's what a reasonable person would do. That's why it's so crucial to have a good attorney in these murder cases because you're arguing concepts like this, and whoever can argue them the best and use the facts most effectively will win in a close case when it comes to murder defense in Los Angeles.
Related:
