Summary In the State of Connecticut v. Eric Amado (State v. Amado, supra, 42 Conn. App. 351-56), the court found the defendant guilty of two counts of murder, two counts of felony, and one count of a capital felony. The trial court merged the all convictions and sentenced the defendant to life imprisonment. The defendant had gone to the home of Anthony Young and fired gunshots that killed Young and Peter Hall. The defendant claimed that he killed the two men in self-defense as they had started to draw their guns to shoot him. However, the court dismissed the defendant’s claim. Facts In this case, Amado went to Young’s home to confront him after realizing that Young had stolen his cocaine. During the confrontation, the defendant fired five gunshots that wounded Young and Hall fatally. When the medical personnel came to offer medical assistance to the men, they found both men alive. The medical personnel found each of the men holding a loaded gun. Both Young and Hall died later due to gunshot wounds. The fact that both men were holding guns when the medical personnel arrived shows that there was a confrontation between the defendant and both men. Issues The major issue in the case is whether one can use self-defense in felony murder. Holding The defendant committed felony murder, and could, therefore, not use defense or self-defense as an argument for his defense. Opinion The jury was of the opinion that self-defense is not admissible as a defense to a charge of felony murder. Therefore, regardless of whether the defendant committed the offense willingly or unwillingly, he is responsible for the murder of the two men. In addition, the defendant cannot prove his claim of self-defense sufficiently, since the murder occurred in the home of the victim. However, if the death of the victim had occurred in the home of the defendant, the claim of self-defense would have been admissible in court. Notes The defendant did not find himself in the victims by chance. He went to Young’s home with an ill motive. Therefore, he was ready for any outcome if there was a confrontation with the victim. The fact that the defendant went to Young’s home carrying a loaded gun shows that he was ready to confront Young using any means. He was ready to use force if necessary. Therefore, the defendant’s claim of self-defense is not admissible in court. The prosecution can prove the motive for the murder easily. Objective It is clear that the defendant had gone to Young’s home to confront him. Therefore, the defendant is the main source of the confrontation. If the defendant had not gone to the victim’s home, there would have been no confrontation or death of the victim. Due to the fact that Young was in his home, he has the right to defend himself from any individual who may trespass into his home with the intention of harming him. In so doing, Young may use all the necessary force to repel the aggressor. On the other hand, the defendant also has the right to protect himself if he feels that another party’s actions threaten his life. This case is a clear illustration of instances when self-defense is admissible in court. The notion of self-defense is not admissible if the defendant was at the victim’s home.