Opinion ID: 2308115
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Justification Defense

Text: Although a defendant's knowledge of the law enforcement officer's status is not an essential element of the crime of resisting arrest under section 1257, it can be raised as an affirmative defense under Title 11, section 464. As explained in Jackson, the Commentary to section 1257 specifically references section 464(4): Justification: use of force in self-protection. [28] Section 464 reads, in relevant part, as follows: (a) The use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable when the defendant believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting the defendant against the use of unlawful force by the other person on the present occasion. . . . (d) The use of force is not justifiable under this section to resist an arrest which the defendant knows or should know is being made by a peace officer, whether or not the arrest is lawful. In holding that justification is a defense to the charge of resisting arrest, we stated in Jackson: A person may be found guilty of resisting arrest without any proof that the accused knew that it was a peace officer attempting to make the arrest. The accused may claim justification as a defense, however, and he would be entitled to prevail if he could convince the jury that he did not know or have reason to know that the person making the arrest was a peace officer. [29] The defense of justification to a charge of resisting arrest has been a part of Delaware's jurisprudence for more than one hundred years. [30] That defense requires the defendant to produce `some credible evidence' to support the defense, sufficient to create a reasonable doubt as to the defendant's guilt. [31] Accordingly, when sections 1257 and 464 are read in pari materia, the burden is on the accused to establish that he or she did not know the police officer's status. Where a defendant raises the defense of justification to a charge of resisting arrest and proffers some credible evidence to support that defense, the jury must be instructed in accordance with section 464. [32] In this appeal, we directed the parties to address how a jury should be instructed, pursuant to Title 11, section 464, when a defendant is charged with resisting arrested under Title 11, section 1257. The State submitted the following instruction: A defense raised by the defendant in this case is justification. Under Delaware law, the use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable when the defendant believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting the defendant against the use of unlawful force by the other person on the present occasion. Thus, if the defendant did not know or have reason to know that the person making the arrest was a peace officer, then he is not guilty of the charge of resisting arrest. If, after considering all of the evidence tending to support the defense of justification, you find that the evidence raised a reasonable doubt in your mind about the defendant's guilt, you must find [him/her] not guilty of resisting arrest. Any evidence tending to raise this defense must be considered along with all of the other evidence in this case in determining whether the State has satisfied its burden of proving the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. We agree that this jury instruction would satisfy the requirements of section 464, section 1257, and also comport with our holding in Jackson v. State .