Court Opinion

ID: 9853483
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:49:30.007444+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:49.730673
License: Public Domain

BURKE, Justice,
concurring in the result.
In my view Toomey was not entitled to any instruction on his claim of self-defense. Assuming, arguendo, that Toomey had a right to defend himself against the threat posed by the advance of David Ensley and his unidentified companion, I fail to understand how that right would extend to his actions against Patricia Bucher, the victim of the robbery. See State v. Banks, 539 P.2d 173, 175 (Ariz.App.1975). As stated in State v. Millett, 273 A.2d 504, 511 (Me.1971), “When the jury was permitted to consider the claim of self-defense at all, the defendant was accorded more than he was entitled to on the evidence presented.”
Thus, I concur in the result agreed upon by my brothers Rabinowitz and Matthews.