Opinion ID: 2219440
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Justification Instruction.

Text: The defendant raises an issue regarding the legal sufficiency of this instruction given by the court: Instruction No. 27 The defendant claims he acted with justification. A person may use reasonable force to prevent criminal interference with his property. The use of this force is known as justification. Justification is only available as a defense to element number 6 of Burglary in the First Degree (instructions number 15 & 16). The State must prove the defendant was not acting with justification. (Emphasis added.) Specifically, he complains that the court should not have limited the defense of justification to element six, i.e., that he intentionally or recklessly inflicted bodily injury. He contends that the justification defense should also apply to another element of the offense: that he broke or entered with the specific intent to commit an assault. See Iowa Code § 713.1. The general rule is that the owner of property may justify an assault on the ground that he acted in defense of his property against an unlawful invasion. 6 Am. Jur.2d Assault and Battery § 81, at 73 (1963). However, [i]n defending one's property the owner may only use such force as appears reasonably necessary for that purpose, and must stop short of endangering the life of his adversary or of putting his adversary in danger of suffering great bodily harm except, according to some authorities, where he acts in a legitimate attempt to prevent a felony against himself or his property, or in urgent or extreme cases. The person whose property right is assailed must first use moderate means before resorting to extreme measures in its defense and he may not use force for the protection of his property after the necessity for such protection has passed. Ordinarily, whether excessive force has been used in defense of property is a question of fact to be determined by the jury. Id. § 88, at 77; accord 94 C.J.S. Assault and Battery § 94, at 485-86 (1975) (justification limited to reasonably necessary force). In Iowa, the justification defense is codified in section 704.4, which provides in part: A person is justified in the use of reasonable force to prevent or terminate criminal interference with the person's possession or other right in property. Reasonable force in turn is defined by section 704.1 as that force and no more which a reasonable person, in like circumstances, would judge to be necessary to prevent an injury or loss and can include deadly force if it is reasonable to believe that such force is necessary to avoid injury or risk to one's life or safety or the life or safety of another.... It is clear that at the time of entry the defendant could not have known whether his property was being threatened. While he might have suspected this, [t]o justify a resort to force in defense of property, the danger should be such as to induce one exercising reasonable and proper judgment to interfere to prevent the consummation of the injury; the mere suspicion or fear of encroachment is not justification for the use of force. The necessity, however, need not be real; it need be only reasonably apparent and the resistance offered be in good faith. 6A C.J.S. Assault and Battery § 94, at 486 (1975). In this case, the defendant's entry preceded any knowledge on his part of threats to his property, and therefore, it could not have been reasonable as a matter of law. The court properly denied the expanded instruction.