Opinion ID: 1287681
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Elements of Self-Defense

Text: More than a century ago, this Court set forth the required elements of our self-defense doctrine in Syllabus Point 7 of State v. Cain, 20 W.Va. 679 (1882), where we held that: When one without fault himself is attacked by another in such a manner or under such circumstances as to furnish reasonable grounds for apprehending a design to take away his life, or to do him some great bodily harm, and there is reasonable grounds for believing the danger imminent, that such design will be accomplished, and the person assaulted has reasonable ground to believe, and does believe, such danger is imminent, he may act upon such appearances and without retreating, kill his assailant, if he has reasonable grounds to believe, and does believe, that such killing is necessary in order to avoid the apparent danger; and the killing under such circumstances is excusable, although it may afterwards turn out, that the appearances were false, and that there was in fact neither design to do him some serious injury nor danger, that it would be done. But of all this the jury must judge from all the evidence and circumstances of the case. In State v. Hughes, 197 W.Va. 518, 524, 476 S.E.2d 189, 195 (1996) (citations omitted), we more succinctly stated the elements of our self-defense doctrine as follows: [A] defendant who is not the aggressor and has reasonable grounds to believe, and actually does believe, that he is in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm from which he could save himself only by using deadly force against his assailant has the right to employ deadly force in order to defend himself. Our holding in Syllabus Point 7 of State v. Cain , and the numerous cases that we have decided under its tenets, makes clear the specific elements and circumstances that must exist before a person's use of deadly force is excusable under our law. [10] The first required element is that a defendant show that he or she was not the aggressor and did not provoke the attack. This requirement reflects the common law rule that one who is at fault or who is the physical aggressor can not rely on self-defense. State v. Smith, 170 W.Va. 654, 656, 295 S.E.2d 820, 822 (1982). See, e.g., State v. Brooks, 214 W.Va. 562, 591 S.E.2d 120 (2003)(defendant who forced her way into another person's home, then struck resident of the dwelling, was aggressor and therefore not entitled to self-defense instruction even though resident used force to repel defendant). The second and third required elements are that a defendant show that the circumstances of the attack formed a reasonable basis to believe, and that the defendant did believe, that he or she was at imminent risk of death or serious bodily injury. As we have held in Section III.1., of this Opinion, the reasonableness of a defendant's belief that death or serious bodily injury was imminent is both a subjective and an objective inquiry. The fourth required element is that a defendant must show that his or her actions were proportionate to the danger. In State v. W.J.B., 166 W.Va. at 608, 276 S.E.2d at 554, (citations omitted), we noted that: the amount of force that can be used in self-defense is that normally one can return deadly force only if he reasonably believes that the assailant is about to inflict death or serious bodily harm; otherwise, where he is threatened only with non-deadly force, he may use only non-deadly force in return. An example of when the use of deadly force was not reasonable is that set forth in State v. Wykle, 208 W.Va. 369, 540 S.E.2d 586 (2000), where we held that the defendant's stabbing of an unarmed victim nine times with a knife was not self-defense, where the only provocation was that the victim slapped the defendant's face during an argument. The final element of our self-defense doctrine requires a defendant to present sufficient evidence on all of the above elements before being entitled to a self-defense instruction and shifting the burden of proof to the State. We have previously defined sufficient evidence as being that which creates a reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant acted in self-defense. Once there is sufficient evidence to create a reasonable doubt that the killing resulted from the defendant acting in self-defense, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense. Syllabus Point 4, State v. Kirtley, 162 W.Va. 249, 252 S.E.2d 374 (1978).