| Revision as of 14:09, 17 March 2008 editZenwhat (talk | contribs)Rollbackers4,094 edits →See also← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 11:15, 13 March 2024 edit undoRodw (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Event coordinators, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers765,751 editsm Disambiguating links to Self Defense (link changed to Self-defense) using DisamAssist. | ||
| (35 intermediate revisions by 30 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Short description|Common law doctrine}} | |||
| ⚫ | '''Imperfect self-defense''' is a ] doctrine |
||
| {{Use American English|date=November 2020}} | |||
| ⚫ | '''Imperfect self-defense''' is a ] doctrine recognized by some jurisdictions whereby a ] may mitigate ] or ] imposed for a crime involving the use of ] by claiming, as a partial ], the honest but unreasonable belief that the actions were necessary to counter an attack. Not all jurisdictions accept imperfect self-defense as a basis to reduce a murder charge.<ref name="west">{{cite book|title=West's Encyclopedia of American Law, Volume 9|date=1998|publisher=West|isbn=9780314201669|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=j407AQAAIAAJ|accessdate=10 September 2017}} (Self-Defense).</ref> | ||
| ==Effect== | |||
| {{quote|If the defendant's self-defense was imperfect, the self-defense may only reduce the defendant's liability. Imperfect self-defense is self-defense that was arguably necessary but somehow unreasonable. For example, if a person had a good faith belief that deadly force was necessary to repel an attack, but that belief was unreasonable, the defendant would have a claim of imperfect self-defense. In some jurisdictions, the successful invocation of such a defense reduces a murder charge to manslaughter. Most jurisdictions do not recognize imperfect self-defense.}} | |||
| ::<small>—Answers.com</small><ref>. Accessed December 21, 2007.</ref> | |||
| * ''']''': A ''perfect'' argument of self-defense proves all elements of self-defense, and results in the defendant's acquittal. If a defendant proves imperfect self-defense, the defendant will be convicted of a lesser homicide charge, such as ].<ref name="west"/> | |||
| It may also be used to make a ] to a ].{{Fact|date=December 2007}} | |||
| * '''Imperfect self-defense''': The concept of ''imperfect'' self-defense is that, although not all elements of self-defense were proved, extenuating circumstances nonetheless ''partially'' excuse the act that caused death. | |||
| ==Examples |
==Examples== | ||
| The doctrine of imperfect self-defense has been defined as "an intentional killing committed with an unreasonable but honest belief that circumstances justified deadly force".<ref>{{cite web|title=State v. Jones, 8 P. 3d 1282, 27 Kan. App. 2d 910 (2000)|url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15201994062332957609|website=Google Scholar|accessdate=10 September 2017}}</ref> Thus, if a person had a good faith belief that deadly force was necessary to repel an attack, but the person's belief was unreasonable, that person would be able to raise imperfect self-defense as a defense to a murder charge.<ref name="west"/> | |||
| For example, in the U.S. state of ] a defendant can be convicted of ] but not ] when imperfect self-defense applies.<ref>{{citation | date = ], ], Decided | title = State v. Humphrey | author = Supreme Court of California | id = 921 P.2d 1; 1996 Cal. LEXIS 4222 }}</ref> <ref>Janet Grumer, ''Note'', Loyola Law Review, Summer 2003, p. 1575, found at . Accessed December 21, 2007.</ref> | |||
| ⚫ | A court in ], held that: | ||
| The doctrine of imperfect self-defense recognizes a defendant’s honest but ''unreasonable'' belief that deadly force is necessary. An appellate court in ] held that "Imperfect self defense is an intentional killing committed with an unreasonable but honest belief that circumstances justified deadly force."<ref>. | |||
| ⚫ | {{quote|When evidence is presented showing the defendant’s subjective belief that the use of force was necessary to prevent imminent death or serious bodily harm, the defendant is entitled to a proper instruction on imperfect ]....The theory underlying the doctrine is that when a defendant uses deadly force with an honest but '''unreasonable''' belief that it is necessary to defend himself, the element of malice, necessary for a murder conviction, is lacking.}} | ||
| </ref> | |||
| ''State v. Faulkner'', 483 A.2d 759, 769 (Md. 1984).<ref>{{cite web|title=State v. Faulkner, 483 A.2d 759, 769, 301 Md. 482 (Md. 1984)|url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17158253875987176431|website=Google Scholar|accessdate=10 September 2017}}</ref> | |||
| ⚫ | ] recognizes imperfect self-defense as a qualified defense that may mitigate second-degree murder to voluntary manslaughter.<ref>{{cite web|title=Clemency Manual, Appendix 8: Michigan Standard Jury Instructions|url=http://www.umich.edu/~clemency/clemency_mnl/a8.html|website=Michigan Women's Justice & Clemency Project|publisher=University of Michigan Law School|accessdate=10 September 2017}}</ref> However, the doctrine can only be used where the defendant would have had a right to self-defense but for the fact that the defendant was the initial aggressor.<ref>{{cite web|title=People v. Deason, 148 Mich. App. 27, 31, 384 N.W.2d 72 (1985)|url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12817597905673513987|website=Google Scholar|accessdate=10 September 2017}}</ref> | ||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | {{quote|When evidence is presented showing the defendant’s subjective belief that the use of force was necessary to prevent imminent death or serious bodily harm, the defendant is entitled to a proper instruction on imperfect ]....The theory underlying the doctrine is that when a defendant uses deadly force with an honest but '''unreasonable''' belief that it is necessary to defend himself, the element of malice, necessary for a murder conviction, is lacking.}} |
||
| ::<small>—''State v. Faulkner'', 483 A.2d 759,769 (Md. 1984)</small> <ref> </ref> | |||
| In the U.S. state of ] a defendant can be convicted of ] but not ] when imperfect self-defense is successfully proven.<ref>{{cite web|title=People v. Humphrey 13 Cal. 4th 1073, 921 P. 2d 1 (1996)|url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9566017733093582200|website=Google Scholar|accessdate=10 September 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last1=Grumer|first1=Janet|title=IX. Self-Defense|journal=Loyola Law Review|date=2003|volume=36|page=1575|url=http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/llr/vol36/iss4/9/|accessdate=10 September 2017}}</ref> | |||
| ⚫ | Michigan |
||
| ==See also== | ==See also== | ||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | *] | ||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| ==References== | ==References== | ||
| {{ |
{{Reflist}} | ||
| ⚫ | ] | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| ⚫ | ] | ||
| ] | |||
Latest revision as of 11:15, 13 March 2024
Common law doctrine
Imperfect self-defense is a common law doctrine recognized by some jurisdictions whereby a defendant may mitigate punishment or sentencing imposed for a crime involving the use of deadly force by claiming, as a partial affirmative defense, the honest but unreasonable belief that the actions were necessary to counter an attack. Not all jurisdictions accept imperfect self-defense as a basis to reduce a murder charge.
- Self-defense: A perfect argument of self-defense proves all elements of self-defense, and results in the defendant's acquittal. If a defendant proves imperfect self-defense, the defendant will be convicted of a lesser homicide charge, such as voluntary manslaughter.
- Imperfect self-defense: The concept of imperfect self-defense is that, although not all elements of self-defense were proved, extenuating circumstances nonetheless partially excuse the act that caused death.
Examples
The doctrine of imperfect self-defense has been defined as "an intentional killing committed with an unreasonable but honest belief that circumstances justified deadly force". Thus, if a person had a good faith belief that deadly force was necessary to repel an attack, but the person's belief was unreasonable, that person would be able to raise imperfect self-defense as a defense to a murder charge.
A court in Maryland, held that:
When evidence is presented showing the defendant’s subjective belief that the use of force was necessary to prevent imminent death or serious bodily harm, the defendant is entitled to a proper instruction on imperfect self defense....The theory underlying the doctrine is that when a defendant uses deadly force with an honest but unreasonable belief that it is necessary to defend himself, the element of malice, necessary for a murder conviction, is lacking.
State v. Faulkner, 483 A.2d 759, 769 (Md. 1984).
Michigan recognizes imperfect self-defense as a qualified defense that may mitigate second-degree murder to voluntary manslaughter. However, the doctrine can only be used where the defendant would have had a right to self-defense but for the fact that the defendant was the initial aggressor.
In the U.S. state of California a defendant can be convicted of manslaughter but not murder when imperfect self-defense is successfully proven.
See also
References
- ^ West's Encyclopedia of American Law, Volume 9. West. 1998. ISBN 9780314201669. Retrieved 10 September 2017. (Self-Defense).
- "State v. Jones, 8 P. 3d 1282, 27 Kan. App. 2d 910 (2000)". Google Scholar. Retrieved 10 September 2017.
- "State v. Faulkner, 483 A.2d 759, 769, 301 Md. 482 (Md. 1984)". Google Scholar. Retrieved 10 September 2017.
- "Clemency Manual, Appendix 8: Michigan Standard Jury Instructions". Michigan Women's Justice & Clemency Project. University of Michigan Law School. Retrieved 10 September 2017.
- "People v. Deason, 148 Mich. App. 27, 31, 384 N.W.2d 72 (1985)". Google Scholar. Retrieved 10 September 2017.
- "People v. Humphrey 13 Cal. 4th 1073, 921 P. 2d 1 (1996)". Google Scholar. Retrieved 10 September 2017.
- Grumer, Janet (2003). "IX. Self-Defense". Loyola Law Review. 36: 1575. Retrieved 10 September 2017.