Opinion ID: 1734875
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Lack of Justification or Excuse.

Text: In Nebraska, the use of deadly force in self-defense is a statutorily defined affirmative defense. Neb.Rev.Stat. § 28-1409(4) (Reissue 1989) mandates that [t]he use of deadly force shall not be justifiable under this section unless the actor believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death, serious bodily harm, kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat.... In addition, this court has held that in order to successfully assert the claim of self-defense, one must have both a reasonable and good faith belief in the necessity of using deadly force. State v. Thompson, 244 Neb. 375, 507 N.W.2d 253 (1993). Instruction No. 5 in this case informed the jury that a material element of second degree murder was that White did not kill in self-defense and that the State had the burden of proving the lack of self-defense, beyond a reasonable doubt. Instruction No. 10 told the jurors that in order for White to act in self-defense, he must reasonably [believe] that his use of deadly force was immediately necessary to protect him against death or serious bodily harm.... .... The fact that [White] may have been wrong in estimating the danger does not matter so long as there was a reasonable basis for what he believed and he acted reasonably under the circumstances as they existed at the time[.] Thus, these instructions, when read as a whole, correctly state the law, are not misleading, and adequately cover the issues, as the instructions tell the jury it must find, beyond a reasonable doubt, White subjectively believed that the use of deadly force in self-defense was immediately necessary and that this subjective, good faith belief was reasonable. See State v. Lowe, 248 Neb. 215, 533 N.W.2d 99 (1995). Accordingly, when the jury convicted White of second degree murder, it necessarily concluded either that White did not subjectively believe that the use of deadly force in self-defense was immediately necessary or that he was unreasonable in his belief, or both. The majority asserts that there are circumstances when [t]he absence of self-defense may coexist with the absence of malice. It is suggested that when one acts in self-defense with a protective intent rather than with a criminal intent devoid of justification or excuse, such person does not act with malice and cannot be convicted of second degree murder. I disagree. There are times when a killer claims a subjective honest belief that his actions were necessary for his safety (protective intent), even though, on an objective appraisal by a judge or a jury, the circumstances are found to be otherwise. In Nebraska, such a mistaken subjective belief that results in the intentional killing of another human being is not justified by statute and, under the law of this state, is murder. See, State v. Thompson, supra ; State v. Stueben, 240 Neb. 170, 481 N.W.2d 178 (1992). An intentional killing is either justified, as defined by statute, or it is murder, as defined by statute. See, Neb.Rev.Stat. §§ 28-1406 through 28-1416 (Reissue 1989); Neb.Rev. Stat. §§ 28-303 and 28-304 (Reissue 1989). There are no in-between crimes, nor are there any subjective, in-between justifications for an intentional killing. See State v. Jones, 245 Neb. 821, 515 N.W.2d 654 (1994). The principle which underlies these rules is that human life should not be made to depend upon conditions so unreliable and hazardous as the bare belief of any person that he or she is in danger of death or bodily harm. State v. Thompson, supra ; State v. Stueben, supra . Therefore, an unreasonable, albeit subjective, good faith belief in the necessity of using deadly force does not negate the existence of malice, as that term is defined, in Nebraska. The jury was correctly instructed regarding the elements of second degree murder and White's statutory claim of self-defense.