Court Opinion

ID: 9791484
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:11:36.209009+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:36.390134
License: Public Domain

THOMAS, Justice,
dissenting,
with whom MACY, Justice, joins.
I dissent from the majority opinion in this case. I would hold that Duckett was not entitled to a defense of defense of others in this ease, and consequently there was no error in the refusal of the district court to give the requested instruction. The Judgment and Sentence in this case should be affirmed. Succinctly, there is nothing in this record that persuades me that Duckett’s wife would have been justified in using deadly force against Hetler, and if she would not have been justified in doing that, Duckett has no better claim to a defense of others theory than she had to a self defense theory.
In invoking the fulcrum of acting in concert, in this case the majority opinion manifests disingenuity. The full quotation from 2 Robinson, CRIMINAL Law Defenses, § 131(b) at 73 (1984), is far less persuasive than the truncated version included in the proposed majority opinion. The full version reads:
(b) Triggering Conditions
The defensive force justification is triggered, as noted in subsection (1) of the principle, when an aggressor unjustifiably threatens harm to any legally-protected interest.
(1) Aggressor. An “aggressor,” as that term is used in the triggering condition in subsection (1) of the principle, might well be defined as any person who contributes to the threat of harm to the defendant. There is no apparent reason why an “aggressor, ” for the purposes of the defense, should be limited to the person directly threatening harm to the defendant. Suppose that X, an underworld gang leader, orders one of his underlings, Y, to kill D while both X and Y are in D ⅛ presence. Suppose further that only X is vulnerable to D ⅛ defensive force (Y has a bulletproof vest) and that Y will act only while X is alive. Although Y presents the more immediate danger, X is as dangerous and as responsible for the threat as any other aggressor. Indeed, if D kills Y in self-defense, X may order someone else to do the job, and the threat to D will continue. D should be able to claim self-defense, then, against X as well as against Y. Admittedly, it may be more difficult for D to demonstrate that force against X a more distant source of the aggression is necessary, as described in subsection (c) of this *950section, but the threat posed by X should trigger a justification for some action.
Clearly, the author was discussing self-defense, not defense of others, and the circumstances are much more sophisticated than the combat between Duckett’s wife and Carlson.
The fulcrum for the majority position is unsound, and the lever of Wyoming authority is equally weak. The majority invokes Leeper v. State, 589 P.2d 379 (Wyo.1979), but simply for the proposition that Wyoming has recognized the defense of defense of others. A more ample reference to the language of Leeper demonstrates the limitations that are imposed upon that theory of defense.
One asserting the justification of defense of another steps into the position of the person defended. Defense of another takes its form and content from defense of self. The defender is not justified in using force unless he or she reasonably believes the person defended is in immediate danger of unlawful bodily harm, and that the force is reasonable and necessary to prevent that threat. The defender can only use that degree of force necessary to reheve the risk of harm. Commonwealth v. Martin, Mass., [369 Mass. 640] 341 N.E.2d 885 (1976); State v. Adams, 2 N.C.App. 282, 163 S.E.2d 1 (1968); State v. Washington, 185 Neb. 329, 175 N.W.2d 620 (1970); State v. Hewitt, 205 S.C. 207, 31 S.E.2d 257 (1944); Stanley v. Commonwealth, 86 Ky. 440, 6 S.W. 155 (1887); State v. Mounkes, 88 Kan. 193, 127 P. 637 (1912); Pond v. People, 8 Mich. 150 (1860); State v. Cook, 78 S.C. 253, 59 S.E. 862 (1907); Brockwell v. State, Ark., [260 Ark. 807] 545 S.W.2d 60 (1976); State v. Alston, 35 N.C.App. 691, 242 S.E.2d 523 (1978); Morgan v. State, Tex.Cr.R., 545 S.W.2d 811 (1977); State v. Meyer, 96 Wash. 257, 164 P. 926 (1917); Commonwealth v. Russogulo, 263 Pa. 93, 106 A. 180 (1919); 1 Wharton Criminal Law and Procedure, § 218, p. 480 (1957). The defense is of ancient origin, and of uniform application. 2 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *3-4. This defense does not allow the defender to do more than the one defended.
The rule allows defense from unlawful attacks, and under the traditional defense, a defender was not justified in coming to the defense of an aggressor or one who initiated the battle. As the rights of the defender are coterminous with the right of the defense of self, and as one who initiated a battle had no right to self-defense absent abandonment, withdrawal or retreat available or communicated, one who defends an aggressor does so at his or her peril. Crowder v. State, 76 Tenn. 669 (1881); Wood v. State, 128 Ala. 27, 29 So. 557 (1900); State v. Turner, 246 Mo. 598, 152 S.W. 313 (1912); Stanley v. Commonwealth, supra; Murphy v. State, 188 Tenn. 583, 221 S.W.2d 812 (1949); State v. Cook, supra; Mack v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 348 So.2d 524 (1977). Where two engage unlawfully in a mutual fight, of whatever character, the law does not authorize anyone to take sides and aid one to overcome his adversary. Perkins, Criminal Law, 2d Ed., 1969, Ch. 10, § 5, p. 1020; Utterback v. Commonwealth, 105 Ky. 723, 49 S.W. 479, 20 Ky.L.R. 1515, 88 Am.St.Rep. 328 (1899); Adams v. State, 48 Tex.Cr.R. 452, 93 S.W. 116 (1906); and citations above. Where both agree to fight, both are aggressors. Earl Leeper and Johannsen mutually agreed to settle their differences by combat. Both voluntarily left the bar. Which of the two initially gave the invitation appears to us immaterial in such a case. In addition, Judith was aware of the consensual nature of the fight, hence, we restrict our holding to this situation, and distinguish the cases involving the ignorant defender, such as State v. Fair, 45 N.J. 77, 211 A.2d 359 (1965). Judith made no effort to dissuade the combatants. After they left the barroom, she thought for two or three minutes without comment. Then she rose, removed the weapon from her purse while still at the bar and without knowledge of the battle, and walked out the door. She requested no help and did not call for assistance. She was calm and collected, gave her warning and fired.
Judith Leeper was not, under these facts, justified in using deadly force in defense of her husband as he would not *951have been justified. Earl was a mutual combatant. A difficult situation might arise if the two had agreed to use nondeadly force, and Johannsen had escalated the battle to a mortal level, but the facts, as the jury was entitled to find them, do not support that conclusion. Earl was on the ground, face down, but Johannsen at the time of the fatal shot was not in attack. He was standing over him. Afterward, Earl arose immediately and with Judith’s help attempted to revive Johannsen. All witnesses testified Earl appeared to have suffered no visible injury, no marks on his person, or torn clothing. The jury was entitled to believe Earl was not in great peril of death or great bodily harm, and deadly force was unjustified by him or on his behalf. As the killing was unjustified, and as all the evidence shows no heat of passion, the conviction on murder in the second degree appears valid. Indeed, Judith testified that she believed Earl dead. If she is to be believed, this fact, together with the other facts, would indicate a revengeful mind. Indeed, the absence of a passionate character under such circumstances could have been considered as evidence of malice. People v. Curtis, 52 Mich. 616, 18 N.W. 385 (1884).
Leeper, 589 P.2d at 383 (emphasis added).
If Leeper were to be followed in this instance, it is clear that Duckett’s wife could not have claimed a right of self-defense as to Hetler. There is nothing to suggest that he ever, in any way threatened Duckett’s wife with any serious bodily injury. If the rule adopted by the majority here were the law, then Mrs. Leeper would have been justified in shooting and perhaps killing every person who might have attempted to interfere with her effort to dispatch Johannsen. I submit that this is a dangerous doctrine to have available in any situation, but clearly it is dangerous in any situation in which excess indulgence leads to combat.
The result reached by the majority in this case is contrary to our Wyoming precedent. It is not supported by the treatise that is relied upon. The defense of defense of others should be limited to those situations in which the person to be rescued is clearly entitled to a claim of self-defense. There is nothing in this record to suggest that Duck-ett’s wife was in any danger from Hetler. Since Duckett, by his own testimony, eliminated any self-defense claim on his own behalf, the perceptive approach of the trial court should be sustained.
Duckett’s Judgment and Sentence should be affirmed rather than reversed. That is the resolution that I support.