It is important to note that, for this defense to be effective, you must have acted reasonably under the circumstances. In other words, you are required to have
held a reasonable belief that you were in impending peril of death, serious bodily injury or an unlawful touching
held a reasonable belief that it was necessary that you employ force to prevent this harm from occurring
and
that you used only that force which was necessary to prevent the harm from occuring
You are not required to “retreat” in the face of the aforementioned peril. Many states have a codified “stand your ground;” however, our “stand your ground” law is embedded in our common law and existing statutory framework. You do not have to run away in the face of danger. You are legally justified in confronting credible and immediate threats of harm to your person.
A California criminal defendant can assert “self-defense” against a wide array of California criminal charges, including, but not necessarily limited to, assault, battery, assault with a deadly weapon or other aggravated battery, murder and rape.
Let’s look at a few target examples of how self-defense is used as a California legal defense:
Jane is walking out to her car in a parking lot late at night when she is accosted by a man with a gun. What the man doesn’t realize is that Jane is “packing heat.” She swiftly and stealthily takes a gun out of her purse and shoots the man, who dies. Jane was acting in self-defense and used lethal force against a lethal threat. She was legally justified in killing the man who accosted her. Accordingly, he should be acquitted of murder, i.e., the alleged California Penal Code Section 187 violation.
Bob is withdrawing money from his ATM when he is suddenly approached by Mike Mugger, who represents having a loaded firearm. Bob violently elbows Mike in the face when the latter looks over his shoulder to see if anyone is coming. Mike suffers severe cranial injuries. Bob was justified in doing what he needed to do to prevent potentially lethal injury to himself. Bob will likely be acquitted of aggravated battery under California Penal Code Section 243(d).
Slightly inebriated, Jeremy is somewhat rambunctious and unruly in his behavior. An off-duty cop, Grimace, approaches Jeremy and initiates a stop-and-frisk and, very quickly thereafter, an arrest for drunk in public. Grimace is inordinately aggressive and even puts Jeremy in a chokehold. Infuriated at this unjustified level of force, Jeremy manages to extricate himself from the potentially-lethal maneuver, punches Grimace in the face and subdues him. Jeremy is charged with battery on a peace officer under California Penal Code Section 243(b). Jeremy’s West Covina criminal defense attorney, however, successfully argues that Jeremy was using that force which was reasonable under the circumstances in order to protect himself against great bodily injury arising out of the off-duty cop’s use of excessive force.
Vivien is at a Halloween party. Herbert sees her and is enticed by her. He approaches her and begins to put his hands on her body. He is about to put his hands into her underwear to reach for her vagina when she violently punches him on the chest, causing Herbert to fall down and sustain substantial bodily harm. Vivien was within her legal right to use force to stave off the sexual assault.
If you or a loved one are experiencing a criminal investigation, or you have been arrested and/or charged with a crime in California, our West Covina criminal defense law firm is available to receive your call at 1-855-FUK-JAIL (1-855-385-5245). We invite you to call us to set up your free consultation.
To help you, the reader, get a full grasp or comprehension of self-defense in California, our West Covina criminal defense lawyers will now go through the intricacies and ins and outs California self-defense.
1. What is the Definition of Self-Defense in California?
If the prosecutor filed a criminal charge against you, you may be able to assert “self-defense” to seek a dismissal or acquittal of your charge. For you to be able to avail yourself of self-defense as a defense, you have to prove the following:
When you committed the alleged crime, you harbored a reasonable belief that you were facing imminent harm of death, serious bodily injury or an unlawful touching;
You harbored the reasonable belief that you had to use force in order to prevent the harm from occurring;
and you used more force than was necessary to stave off the harm
It should be noted that the prosecutor has the burden of proving all of these elements. So if the evidence could show that you acted in self-defense, then the prosecution must demonstrate that self-defense is inapplicable in your case.
The prosecutor must prove this beyond a reasonable doubt.
Let’s examine the terms used in these “elements” to get a better understanding of whether or not self-defense could apply in your case.
a. Threat of Imminent Danger
In order for you to avail yourself of self-defense, you must demonstrate that you were about to suffer death, bodily injury, sexual assault or some other harmful or unlawful touching. Further, you must show you were in imminent danger of suffering one or more of these things.
If you feared some future harm, you did not have legal justification to act in self-defense. Why? Because, again, you must been under threat of imminent danger in order to use force.
Let’s use an example:
Armand and Buck are dating. Their relationship is initially fraught with gentleness, romance and mutual affection. However, as time goes on, Armand becomes more abusive, possessive and domineering. One evening, Armand and Buck are dining out a restaurant when Buck excuses himself from the table to go to the bathroom. In fact, he uses the time to talk on the payphone with someone else. Armand is already behaving in a jealous and possessive manner because Buck is wearing a provocative low-cut red cocktail dress with sequins. Armand, thinking Buck is taking too long, goes to seek out Buck and becomes incensed when he sees him on the phone, presumably talking to another man. Armand violently assaults Buck with the phone, humiliating him in front of the horrified guests.
Later, as they are driving home and Buck is writhing in pain, Buck conjures up the mental fortitude to kill Armand while the latter is sleeping. Sure enough, several hours later while the both are asleep, Buck very quietly wakes up, takes his pillow and smothers Armand with it. Armand adamantly resists Buck but succumbs to the smothering. He suffocates and dies. Buck is charged with murder.
Buck alleges self-defense. However, this will not be an effective defense because, although he was the victim of Armand’s brutal assault, the threat of continued or imminent harm had completely subsided, such that Buck was under no threat of immediate harm at the time he killed Armand.
HOWEVER,
Let’s change the facts slightly and say that, while Armand is hitting with Buck with the phone (thwacking him so hard he is spitting and spluttering blood), Buck takes out a switchblade from his purse and stabs Armand, cutting him so bad that he dies. Then, Buck may successfully argue he acted in self-defense because he was under imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury.
b. Death, serious bodily harm or harmful/offensive touching
To effectively use self-defense as your legal defense to a murder charge, you must have been defending yourself against a crime which was “forcible and atrocious” in nature.
These include: battery which could cause you to suffer severe bodily harm, rape, mayhem, robbery, murder (or other homicide, i.e., manslaughter).
In order to use lethal force against another person, that person must have presented the immediate threat of carrying out one of these “forcible and atrocious” offenses.
However, if the alleged victim presented a threat of non-lethal force (for example, a misdemeanor battery), you cannot have used lethal force. Your force must be measured under the circumstances, that is, it must match the force you were facing.
Thus, if someone is about to take a swing at you (Penal Code Section 242 PC – Battery), you have the right to use reasonable, non-deadly force to thwart the attack.
Luther is at a nightclub and makes eye contact with an attractive and buxom blonde in a satin blue dress, who reciprocates Luther’s flirtatiousness. The blonde’s jealous boyfriend, Hector, sees this and becomes irate. Luther sees Hector coming at him, about to take a swing at him, when Luther zaps Hector with a cattle prod. Hector falls to the ground, goes into a convulsive fit and dies.
With these facts, Luther had the right to use non-lethal force to defend himself; he did NOT have the right to use LETHAL force against an imminent battery as presented here.
c. Harboring a reasonable belief in a threat
To successfully assert self-defense, you must have held an honest, good faith and reasonable belief that you were under threat of impending harm and that you needed to use force to prevent that harm from befalling you.
To determine whether or not your belief was reasonable, the trier of fact (jury – or a judge in a bench trial) must use something called the “objective standard.” This means that the jury must ask itself: “would a reasonable person standing in the shoes of the accused have believed he was in danger of imminent attack?” If the answer is yes, then you should be acquitted provided that the force you used was reasonable under the circumstances.
If the belief was unreasonable, for example, due to paranoia, phobia or other mental illness, you will not be able to successfully assert self-defense.
Let’s stay that Ronnie Roommate is bunking with two other alumni in a college dormitory. Ronnie suffers from paranoid schizophrenia, which causes him to hear voices which aren’t there. One of those voices tells him that his roommates are conspiring to kill him in his sleep. One night, when his roommates are asleep, Ronnie wakes up and stabs them to death. Ronnie is arrested and tried for murder; he claims self-defense. The jury believes that he did not harbor a reasonable belief that he was under imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury. Ronnie may have held a subjectively good faith belief that his roommates were plotting his demise; but, again, the test is objective, NOT subjective.
Ronnie is thereafter convicted and sentenced to die by lethal injection.
Battered Wife Syndrome
While it is true that paranoia or other mental illness will preclude you from successfully asserting self-defense (as in the above example with Ronnie), a defendant accused of murder or manslaughter in California may be able to assert self-defense if s/he suffered from“battered woman’s syndrome.” Women, as well as men, involved in relationships marked with prolonged and repeated episodes of domestic violence can assert this defense. If you are accused of murder or manslaughter and you suffered from battered wife or battered woman’s syndrome, your California criminal defense attorney will ask the jury to consider it’s effects on you. In making this consideration, the jury will determine whether or not you acted reasonably under the circumstances. In other words, the jury will have to decide: “would a reasonable person suffering from battered wife syndrome have acted the same way?”
Let’s go back to the above example with Armand and Buck. As stated before, their relationship was initially amorous but (as alluded to earlier) it devolved into violence and hate when Armand became possessive and controlling. One night, Armand and Buck having dinner at a fancy restaurant, Buck excuses himself from the table to go to the bathroom. In fact, he uses the time to talk on the payphone (since he does not have any privacy at home). Armand is already experiencing jealousy because Buck is wearing a provocative low-cut sequined red cocktail dress, (which he thinks is causing other men to lure at Buck). Armand finds Buck on the phone and becomes irate because he presumes he is talking to another man. Armand violently assaults Buck with the phone, humiliating him in front of the horrified guests. After years of this kind of violence, Buck decides he has had enough and kills Armand later that night.
Although it was stated earlier that Buck was not in imminent threat of harm when he killed Armand (and thus has no valid “self-defense” claim), Buck may still be able to obtain an acquittal if his criminal defense attorney can successfully argue that Buck was suffering from battered wife syndrome. Years of humiliating, degradation and misery stemming from protracted domestic abuse (at Armand’s hands) culminated in Buck believing he “could not take it anymore.”
If you or a loved one are experiencing a criminal investigation, or you have been arrested and/or charged with a crime in California, our West Covina criminal defense law firm is available to receive your call at 1-855-385-5245. We invite you to call us to set up your free consultation.
Copyright © 2013 – The Coimbra Law Firm – San Gabriel Valley Criminal Defense Attorney, San Gabriel Valley DUI Defense Attorney – All rights reserved. Any unauthorized reproduction without the explicit written consent of the author is prohibited, constitutes copyright infringement and may result in civil liability. Nothing in the aforementioned constitutes legal advice of any kind.
