conceded by the Defendant but he claims self-defense. Procedural History: Judgement entered for the Defendant Issues: Whether Defendant’s actions are justifiable as self-defense? Whether there was reasonable cause and justification for the use of a deadly weapon in such a situation? Whether there was reasonable cause for the apprehension of serious bodily harm? What is the effect and when can someone utilize self-defense? Rules/ Legal Principles: When acting in reasonable apprehension of serious bodily harm and to repel a reasonably feared serious and dangerous assault by a person of overpowering size, there is justification for the use of a deadly weapon for self-defense.
Analysis/Reasoning: Defendant was legally on the property and did not provoke the encounter or situation. He had reasonable cause for the apprehension of serious bodily harm because of the difference in age, size, and relative physical strength of the Plaintiff. Use of the deadly weapon in such a situation is not usually justifiable but when acting in self-defense accompanied by an actual offer of violence the Defendant’s actions were reasonable. Judgment: Judgement entered for the Defendant. Holding: Notes: Was not required to retreat, mere words will not in and of themselves justify deadly force.
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read both pages?
- Spring '08