Self Defense/Mitigating Factor
Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:28 pm
Hi Folks,
The Appeals Court of Massachusetts issued a decision this week in the case of Commonwealth v. Arcangel Morales, Appeals Ct. No. 06-P-961, that clarifies an important self defense issue. The Defendant was convicted of second degree murder as a result of a stabbing that occurred during a fight. The Defendant admitted that he stabbed the victim, but claimed that he acted in self defense because the victim and two other men backed him up against a wall, and aggressively threatened him, while a woman with them encouraged them to beat up Morales. Morales testified he was afraid for his life. The evidence at trial was disputed as to whether the victim struck first or attempted to strike first.
During deliberations, the jury asked the judge if the victim attempted to strike Morales, but missed, could that be sufficient provocation to be a mitigating factor. The trial judge gave the following instruction to the jury in response to that question: "For there to be reasonable provocation, either sudden provocation or sudden combat, there would need to be physical contact. Even a single blow would be enough, but words and verbal abuse, [] no matter how insulting or obscene, is not enough."
The question before the Appeals Court, was whether the instruction that physical contact is necessary to constitute a mitigating factor (to reduce the crime to manslaughter) was erroneous. Unlike the Massachusetts Castle Law case that was discussed elsewhere on this forum, the Appeals Court reversed the conviction. The trial court was incorrect to focus on whether there was actual physical contact. The Appeals Court found that "[a] properly instructed jury could have concluded that a reasonable person in the defendant's position would have felt an 'immediate and intense' threat and responded as he did." The conviction was reversed and remanded for a new trial.
My reading of this is that the focus in determining whether a person reacts appropriately is whether "A REASONABLE" person would have "felt an immediate and intense threat" at the time he reacted. You can see the obvious trap here. Who is to say what is reasonable? A jury, that's who. You might feel an intense threat near the beginning of a "street interview" by criminal. But what will the jury hear about? An innocuous question? A badgering tone of voice? A refusal to get away from you? Perhaps your martial arts training and intense reading on the subject has made you an UNREASONABLE PERSON in the eyes of the law.
Although the decision seems to bolster self defense at first glance, I wouldn't be too sanguine about that conclusion. The way I see it, this is even more of a reason to exercise your rights to silence and counsel in the event you are ever questioned after a physical confrontation.
Sincerely,
Norm Abrahamson
The Appeals Court of Massachusetts issued a decision this week in the case of Commonwealth v. Arcangel Morales, Appeals Ct. No. 06-P-961, that clarifies an important self defense issue. The Defendant was convicted of second degree murder as a result of a stabbing that occurred during a fight. The Defendant admitted that he stabbed the victim, but claimed that he acted in self defense because the victim and two other men backed him up against a wall, and aggressively threatened him, while a woman with them encouraged them to beat up Morales. Morales testified he was afraid for his life. The evidence at trial was disputed as to whether the victim struck first or attempted to strike first.
During deliberations, the jury asked the judge if the victim attempted to strike Morales, but missed, could that be sufficient provocation to be a mitigating factor. The trial judge gave the following instruction to the jury in response to that question: "For there to be reasonable provocation, either sudden provocation or sudden combat, there would need to be physical contact. Even a single blow would be enough, but words and verbal abuse, [] no matter how insulting or obscene, is not enough."
The question before the Appeals Court, was whether the instruction that physical contact is necessary to constitute a mitigating factor (to reduce the crime to manslaughter) was erroneous. Unlike the Massachusetts Castle Law case that was discussed elsewhere on this forum, the Appeals Court reversed the conviction. The trial court was incorrect to focus on whether there was actual physical contact. The Appeals Court found that "[a] properly instructed jury could have concluded that a reasonable person in the defendant's position would have felt an 'immediate and intense' threat and responded as he did." The conviction was reversed and remanded for a new trial.
My reading of this is that the focus in determining whether a person reacts appropriately is whether "A REASONABLE" person would have "felt an immediate and intense threat" at the time he reacted. You can see the obvious trap here. Who is to say what is reasonable? A jury, that's who. You might feel an intense threat near the beginning of a "street interview" by criminal. But what will the jury hear about? An innocuous question? A badgering tone of voice? A refusal to get away from you? Perhaps your martial arts training and intense reading on the subject has made you an UNREASONABLE PERSON in the eyes of the law.
Although the decision seems to bolster self defense at first glance, I wouldn't be too sanguine about that conclusion. The way I see it, this is even more of a reason to exercise your rights to silence and counsel in the event you are ever questioned after a physical confrontation.
Sincerely,
Norm Abrahamson