Court Opinion

ID: 9728326
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 14:05:03.483641+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:47.599959
License: Public Domain

*175Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by
Mr. Justice Manderino :
I concur in the majority’s reversal of the judgment of sentence for the killing of Kellam, but I cannot concur in the affirmance of the judgment of sentence for the killing of Wilson.
The majority attempts to compartmentalize a single episode in which the appellant reasonably feared aggression from four men in the hallway outside appellant’s apartment.
Appellant was sitting at home minding his own business, when four aggressive men knocked at his door. They leave the first time, but return shortly thereafter. Appellant, who had several visitors in his apartment, reasonably stepped into the hall rather than expose his visitors to the four aggressive intruders. One of them brandishes a dangerous weapon, another came at the appellant. In the course of the entire episode, appellant stabs two of the men. Under the majority’s view the four men should have been individually checked and searched by the appellant before he moved against any of them. An episode, such as that which occurred in this case, cannot be broken up. At the time appellant stabbed Wilson, two of the group of four men were still in the hallway outside appellant’s apartment. What was the appellant to do when a second man came at him after he had already found it necessary, in self-defense, to stab the first man? He could hardly have been expected to leave the second man alone while there were still present in the hallway the third and fourth members of the gang. How would the appellant know what these two men would do, or what weapons they had? The majority analyzes the factual situation as though there were four unrelated aggressors. There was actually one single aggressor which can fairly be called a gang and as long as the gang was threatening, the appellant had a right to defend himself.
*176Tie majority not only splits up tie episode as tiougi a computer were at hand, but it relies on tie appellant’s statement that ie stabbed Wilson as ie ran down tie hall. Wilson was not running toward a customary exit. Why would a reasonable man think Wilson was retreating permanently? Wilson could easily have turned back toward tie appellant and continued iis aggression, particularly since two members of tie gang were still there.
What happened in this case could happen to any citizen who is minding iis own business, sitting at home with friends. Four aggressors with weapons arrive and start something endangering appellant’s life. Within a few minutes, in self-defense, appellant stabs two of them. How can we possibly justify one killing and not tie other? Tie appellant’s judgment of sentence should be reversed as to both Kellam and Wilson.