Opinion ID: 900331
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Lethal Force in Defense of Home and Self

Text: [¶ 10.] On the right to use lethal force in his home, Pellegrino charges an array of errors which we condense for clarity. His arguments are rooted in the view that if a person is unlawfully in a home, any force is justified. Our statute governing this point states: Homicide is justifiable when committed by any person when resisting any attempt to murder such person, or to commit any felony upon him or her, or upon or in any dwelling house in which such person is. SDCL 22-16-34. To Pellegrino, the court's instructions unduly confined what he believes is a broad statutory privilege to kill. [2] He seems to argue that if one commits any felony in or upon a home, death may be imposed without qualification, even without apparent necessity. If this is what the statute truly intends, then he may be entitled to acquittal as a matter of law as he asserts. This statute, however, obviously codifies the common law and therefore must be read in comprehension of it and our other statutes controlling the use of deadly force. Cf. State v. Burns, 15 Or.App. 552, 516 P.2d 748, 752 (1973)(legislative intent in enacting self-defense statutes was to codify the common law, not create new standard); SDCL 1-1-23 and -24. Even on the frontier in 1877 when this law was first enacted, surely human life was never so lightly valued. Pen.C. 1877, subdiv. 1. [¶ 11.] The feudal concept of home as castle was borne of an age when inhabitants were compelled to turn their dwellings into fortified strongholds. The idea endures into modern times. State v. Taylor, 143 Mo. 150, 44 S.W. 785, 788 (1898). But in our legal tradition, except at its uncivilized beginnings, people were not entitled to kill an assailant unless they honestly and reasonably believed their lives were in danger from assault, or when a felonious assault is being made upon the house, as to commit a burglary, arson, or other felony therein or against the inmates. Id. (quoting Lord Hale in Pleas to the Crown (1 Hale, P.C. 484)); R. Perkins, Criminal Law 1022, n. 1 (2d ed. 1969). Over the years, confusion arose from a too broad interpretation of the castle doctrine: under the common law this precept was merely a limitation on the duty to retreat. State v. Brookshire, 353 S.W.2d 681, 690 (Mo.1962), cert. denied, Brookshire v. Missouri, 371 U.S. 67, 83 S.Ct. 155, 9 L.Ed.2d 119. Home is a shelter and a refuge, not a free-fire zone. State v. Miskimins, 435 N.W.2d 217, 222 (S.D.1989); see also State v. Hauge, 1996 SD 48, ¶ 9, 547 N.W.2d 173, 176 (home  the last citadel). [¶ 12.] Pellegrino contends that McKee committed a burglary, and, as a result, deadly force was justified. We find nothing in the record to intimate that McKee had violence in mind when he arrived at the home. Whether he entered uninvited was even open to question. Leetch testified that Pellegrino opened the door to let them in. Salvatore's testimony on this point was contradictory. Even under the defense version, McKee did not enter in a violent or tumultuous manner; he end Leetch simply opened the screen door and stepped inside. In no version did Pellegrino shoot McKee to prevent him from entering, so this was not an instance where a homeowner was attempting to repel a felonious outside intruder. One has no right to later kill a person simply for having made an illegal entry, as that would not be an act in self-protection, but an execution. See Brookshire, 353 S.W.2d at 691. A man has the right to prevent, in his home, the commission of a felony or the infliction on any of its inmates of a personal injury which may result in the loss of life or in great bodily harm. The right is limited to prevention; it does not extend to punishment for an act already committed.... After the deceased had entered, though burglariously, and after he was in the house, the defendant had no right to kill him for the act of entry already committed. State v. Sorrentino, 31 Wyo. 129, 224 P. 420, 422 (1924). See also 1 R. Anderson, Wharton's Criminal Law and Procedure § 222, at 490 (1957). Wharton's treatise discreetly summarizes the law in this area: When a dwelling house is entered or attempted to be entered without permission, but without force and without felonious intent, as in the case of a mere trespass, the occupant may use force, if reasonably necessary, to prevent or terminate the trespass. Depending upon the circumstances, it may be necessary in the first instance for the occupant to request the intruder to leave; and, if the request is refused, reasonable force may be used to eject him. But the occupant may not use deadly force as against a mere trespasser, unless the trespasser attempts to commit a forcible felony or unless, when the occupant requests the trespasser to leave or when the occupant uses reasonable force to eject him, the trespasser offers resistance to such a degree as to threaten the occupant's life. When a person enters the dwelling house of another with the latter's permission, the occupant may thereafter for whatever reason request him to leave; if the request is refused, reasonable force may be used to eject him. But the occupant may not use deadly force unless it is reasonably necessary in self-defense or in preventing a forcible felony. 2 C. Torcia, Wharton's Criminal Law § 131, at 220-22 (15th ed. 1994)(footnotes omitted). [¶ 13.] Pellegrino argues that even if the jury disbelieved his evidence that McKee unlawfully entered the trailer, McKee committed a separate burglary offense by remaining there against Pellegrino's declared wishes and with intent to commit a crime. [3] See SDCL 22-32-1 (burglary committed when one remains in an occupied structure after forming the intent to commit any crime). Relying upon SDCL 22-16-34 and dictum from State v. Woods, 374 N.W.2d 92, 97 (S.D.1985), Pellegrino proposed and the court refused an instruction stating, Any force used to repel a felonious intruder in your home is considered to be lawful force. This proposal might be correct if we construe the statute rigidly. Yet the term any felony in SDCL 22-16-34 must be understood in its historical context. People v. Martin, 168 Cal.App.3d 1111, 214 Cal.Rptr. 873, 881 (1985)(any felony intended to include common law crimes considered felonies). [¶ 14.] The term felony in former times carried a connotation of greater threat than merely refusing to leave. The common law defined burglary to be the breaking and entering of the dwelling house of another in the nighttime with the intent to commit a felony. 2 W. LaFave & A. Scott, Substantive Criminal Law § 8.13, at 464 (1986); see 4 W. Blackstone's Commentaries, p. 224. If we interpret any felony in SDCL 22-16-34 literally, one might justifiably be shot while forging a check in someone's home. [I]n view of the large number of felonies today and the inclusion of many that do not involve a danger of serious bodily harm, a literal reading of the section is undesirable. People v. Ceballos, 12 Cal.3d 470, 116 Cal.Rptr. 233, 237, 526 P.2d 241, 244-45 (1974). In the common law, the rule developed that use of lethal force to prevent a felony was only justified if the felony was a forcible and atrocious crime. W. LaFave & A. Scott, Criminal Law, at 406-07 (1972)(footnotes omitted); People v. Jones, 191 Cal.App.2d 478, 12 Cal.Rptr. 777, 780 (1961). Any civilized system of law recognizes the supreme value of human life, and excuses or justifies its taking only in cases of apparent absolute necessity. Jones, 12 Cal.Rptr. at 780(victim of felony domestic abuse in home not justified in killing spouse). Where the character and manner of the burglary do not reasonably create a fear of great bodily harm, there is no cause for the exaction of human life. Ceballos, 116 Cal.Rptr. at 238, 526 P.2d at 246. [¶ 15.] Other jurisdictions with identical or nearly identical statutes to SDCL 22-16-34 decipher this justifiable homicide language as if to include the word necessary. State v. Couch, 52 N.M. 127, 193 P.2d 405, 408 (1946); Viliborghi v. State, 45 Ariz. 275, 43 P.2d 210 (1935); Collegenia v. State, 9 Okla.Crim. 425, 132 P. 375 (1913). The Florida Supreme Court in Russell v. State, 61 Fla. 50, 54 So. 360 (1911), examined its equivalent justifiable homicide statute, which states in part: When resisting any attempt to murder such person, or to commit any felony upon him or her, or upon or in any dwelling house in which such person shall be. Id., 54 So. at 361. The Court understood this to mean, that one assaulted in his dwelling house would not be justified in killing the aggressor, unless he had reasonable ground to believe, and did believe, that unless he killed the aggressor a felony would be committed upon him or her, or upon or in the slayer's dwelling. Id. Thus, persons assaulted in their homes may use the force necessary... for their protection against the threatened... harm. Id. Such persons need not retreat, and ... may use all necessary force to eject the intruder, whom [they] may kill in doing it, if this extreme measure appears unavoidable. Id. (citation omitted). [¶ 16.] After carefully examining these cases and our own justifiable homicide statute with its common law ancestry, it is clear that people may defend their dwellings against those who endeavor by violence to enter them and who appear to intend violence to persons inside. When a home is violently assailed by one intent on committing a forcible felony, the inhabitants may repel such intrusion with deadly force if such force appears reasonably necessary. Persons in their own homes assaulted or placed in apparent imminent danger of great personal injury, have the right to stand their ground and meet force with force, even to the extent of taking life if such persons actually believe, and the circumstances and surrounding conditions are such that a reasonably cautious and prudent person would believe, danger of death or great personal injury to be imminent at the hands of the assailant. See State v. Lepine, 21 S.D. 500, 503, 113 N.W. 1076, 1077 (1907); Peele v. State, 155 Fla. 235, 20 So.2d 120, 121 (1944)(citing Wilson v. State, 30 Fla. 234, 11 So. 556, 561 (1892)); Lightbourn v. State, 129 Fla. 43, 175 So. 857 (1937); Russell, 54 So. at 361. On the other hand, people do not hold their lives at the mercy of unreasonable fears or excessive caution of others, and if from such motives human life is taken, there is no justification. Harris v. State, 104 So.2d 739, 743 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1958). [¶ 17.] The trial court instructed the jury that [h]omicide is justifiable when committed by any person who is resisting an attempt to commit any felony upon him in his dwelling house. The court qualified any felony, however, by explaining that [t]he crimes of aggravated assault and kidnapping are felonies. [4] With the numerous and diverse definitions of the term felony today, we believe it was never the intent of our forebears when this statute was enacted to encompass felonies not involving a danger of serious bodily harm. We would probably agree that ordinarily burglary should be included within this description, if for no other reason than by legislative fiat it is a crime of violence in some instances, but given the peculiar facts of this case, we conclude it was within the trial court's discretion to decline to instruct on it here. Helmer, 1996 SD 31 at 1142, 545 N.W.2d at 478; Esslinger, 357 N.W.2d at 532. As part of his theory on a homeowner's right to exact death within the home, Pellegrino believes the court gave conflicting instructions on self-defense, one on defense of home and another on defense of person: To him, defense within one's home differs simplistically from self-defense in that, unlike self-defense, defense in a dwelling requires no danger to life or great bodily harm. [5] Justice Henderson resolved a similar assertion in State v. Jaques, 428 N.W.2d 260 (S.D.1988): Jaques' main argument, although never stated as such, is that they were justified in using lethal force because the evidence showed that Gray threatened Sitting Crow with serious bodily injury, in his own dwelling, and Instruction No. 62 indicates that force used must be limited to what a reasonable person would believe necessary. As stated in State v. Woods, 374 N.W.2d 92, 97 (S.D.1985), any force ... would have been lawful force in repelling a burglar from one's home under SDCL 22-16-34. The defendant's point is well taken that the court's jury instructions ... regarding justifiable homicide when opposing a felony within one's dwelling apparently conflicts with the reasonable force available under [the self-defense instruction]. This conflict, however, is more of form than substance. The court's instructions, taken as a whole, indicate that the jury could find Jaques not guilty if he reasonably believed he was faced with a felony (serious bodily harm) within the dwelling and killed Gray to prevent the harm.    [T]he use of force becomes limited to that which is reasonable in the circumstances, and, as the threat of harm dissipates, so does the reasonableness of the force used.... [T]he jury was properly instructed to consider the reasonableness of the force applied by defendants. The court's instructions, taken as a whole, were adequate. Jaques' argument is without merit. Id. at 265. Although we decline to endorse Woods' dictum, we conclude as in Jaques that the instructions here were adequate. Whether, under the particular facts of each case, homicide was justified is for the jury to decide. Brown v. State, 225 Ga.App. 218, 483 S.E.2d 633, 634 (1997); State v. Clifton, 880 S.W.2d 737, 743 (Tenn.Crim.App.1994); Martin v. State, 610 So.2d 1195, 1197-98 (Ala. Crim.App.1992)(if defendant admits the homicide, justification is a question for the jury). When attacked in his own house, one may justify or excuse the killing of his assailant if such act is apparently necessary to save his own life or to protect himself from great bodily harm. In such case, it is the question of the law of self-defense and not the law of defense of habitation which is involved. Brookshire, 353 S.W.2d at 691(quoting 1 Wharton's Criminal Law and Procedure, supra at § 222). See generally State v. McCombs, 297 N.C. 151, 253 S.E.2d 906 (1979); Commonwealth v. Wilkes, 414 Pa. 246, 199 A.2d 411 (1964), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 939, 85 S.Ct. 344, 13 L.Ed.2d 349; State v. Ivicsics, 604 S.W.2d 773 (Mo.Ct.App.1980); Harris v. State, 104 So.2d 739 (Fla.Dist.Ct. App.1958). [¶ 19.] When a homicide defendant raises self-defense or justification, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the killing was without authority of law. [6] Francis v. Franklin, 471 U.S. 307, 314, 105 S.Ct. 1965, 1971, 85 L.Ed.2d 344, 353 (1985); State v. Wilcox 48 S.D. 289, 297, 204 N.W. 369, 372 (1925). This burden was properly stated in the court's instructions, which gave the jurors the opportunity to find justifiable homicide if they believed Pellegrino shot McKee while resisting McKee's attempts to do him serious bodily harm or to kidnap him. The jurors heard testimony about Pellegrino's professed fear of McKee, along with evidence on the circumstances immediately preceding the killing. From the facts presented, the jury could have properly reasoned that Pellegrino's belief McKee was about to commit an assault was unreasonable. Even if the jury decided that Pellegrino reasonably believed McKee was about to commit an assault, it could still have found that his belief the shooting was necessary to resist the assault was unreasonable. Based on the evidence and the court's instructions, the jury could fairly conclude that it is one thing to shoot a felonious intruder who enters by night to injure or worse, but it is another thing entirely to shoot as a felon an unarmed friend during an argument in one's home.