Recent IN court of appeals decision in self-defense case

[finity]

A recent decision by the IN court of appeals looks like it strengthens the Right to self-defense.

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/06021101cjb.pdf

The court decided from the facts presented at trial that Ault had a "reasonable belief" that deadly force was necessary EVEN THOUGH his attacker had NO weapon other than his hands. They based that on the mere threat of potential imminent "bodily harm":

Here, the facts at trial established that Parrish had driven to Ault‟s house and was standing on his property; that Parrish was shouting, threatening Ault face-to-face with bodily injury; that Parrish had taken the additional action of removing his coat and throwing it inside his vehicle; and that upon removing his coat, Parrish had indicated that his attack on Ault would be “now.” The trial court specifically found that these facts were adequate to establish the objective component of self-defense.

we must conclude that these facts were similarly adequate to
support a reasonable inference regarding the subjective component of self-defense, namely that Ault believed deadly force was necessary to protect himself.

What that tells me is that both the trial court & the court of appeals believe that, in IN, someone does not have to "take a beating" before using deadly force just because the other person is unarmed.

 

[mms]

I totally agree. the idea that you have to have the bunnies and unicorns beat out of you before you can react is wrong.

thanks for the link. +1

 

[Stschil]

Good thing Parrish wasn't a cop, or he would have been sent to Pendleton for life. Justice David sez so

 

[KG1]

Sounds about right to me. An unarmed individual with bad intentions and the mindset and the physical ability to do another person harm can be just as deadly without a weapon. There have been alot of altercations where someone has been killed by one single blow.

 

[finity]

Sounds about right to me. An unarmed individual with bad intentions and the mindset and the physical ability to do another person harm can be just as deadly without a weapon. There have been alot of altercations where someone has been killed by one single blow.

Agreed.

I posted this in response to the many threads on here in which people try to say that if you use a weapon in your defense you WILL go to prison if the other person only threatens you with their hands.

This is one case in which that certainty of going to prison isn't quite so certain.

 

[Indy317]

What that tells me is that both the trial court & the court of appeals believe that, in IN, someone does not have to "take a beating" before using deadly force just because the other person is unarmed.

If they believed that this was a clear case of self-defense they would have throw out the charges. What they are saying is that a person can tell a jury that they shouldn't have to "take a beating" and let the jury decide based on all the facts. I hope everyone here has a spare $50K+ laying around to defend against a murder charge at a jury trial:

"Following a jury trial, Appellant-Defendant Larry Ault was convicted of Murder, a felony,1 and sentenced to fifty-five years in the Department of Correction. Upon appeal, Ault claims that the trial court abused its discretion in denying him a jury instruction on self-defense, forcing him to testify in violation of his Fifth Amendment rights. Concluding that there was sufficient evidence, without Ault‟s testimony, to support a jury instruction on self-defense, we reverse and remand for a new trial."

I posted this in response to the many threads on here in which people try to say that if you use a weapon in your defense you WILL go to prison if the other person only threatens you with their hands.

What if the jury in the new case still convicts him of murder? Will you still post this case as a response?

 

[schafe]

I always felt that if a Mike Tyson type was threatening me with closed fists, I would fear for my life !!!....just sayin'. ( Heck, I'm old, I'd fear for my life if Mike had open hands!!..)

 

[finity]

If they believed that this was a clear case of self-defense they would have throw out the charges. What they are saying is that a person can tell a jury that they shouldn't have to "take a beating" and let the jury decide based on all the facts.

No.

They agreed (along with the trial court) that the evidence supported the self-defense claim but the LIKELY reason he got convicted was because the trial court erred in not advising the jury on the self-defense claim since he refused to testify. Then when he did testify the jury was possibly biased against him by the fact that he had previous felony convictions that would not have come out if he was not placed on the stand to meet the trial courts requirements for giving the jury instruction.

I hope everyone here has a spare $50K+ laying around to defend against a murder charge at a jury trial

I guess you can either spend your $50k defending your actions in court or fighting for your life in the hospital. I know where I'd rather spend my $50k.

"Following a jury trial, Appellant-Defendant Larry Ault was convicted of Murder, a felony,1 and sentenced to fifty-five years in the Department of Correction. Upon appeal, Ault claims that the trial court abused its discretion in denying him a jury instruction on self-defense, forcing him to testify in violation of his Fifth Amendment rights. Concluding that there was sufficient evidence, without Ault‟s testimony, to support a jury instruction on self-defense, we reverse and remand for a new trial."

The appeals court didn't rule on whether the trial court reached an incorrect verdict based on the evidence. That wasn't even argued. They were just supposed to rule on whether the trial court erred in not giving the jury the proper instructions without Ault testifying.

Since the evidence showed that the use of deadly force was reasonably inferred from the facts without him testifying then they found in Aults favor & sent it bacxk to the trial court to fix their mistake.

What if the jury in the new case still convicts him of murder? Will you still post this case as a response?

I guess we'll have to see what the ultimate disposition is before I'll know that.

 

[youngda9]

I always felt that if a Mike Tyson type was threatening me with closed fists, I would fear for my life !!!....just sayin'. ( Heck, I'm old, I'd fear for my life if Mike had open hands!!..)

It's legal to shoot anyone with a scary face tatoo like his

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

I totally agree with the Appeals court. He should have gotten a jury instruction. If shooter is 5'8" / 150 pounds and dumb dead guy is 6'3" / 250, I acquit. Reverse it, and dumb dead guy better be Jet Li, otherwise not so much.

Moral of the story: If you go to somebody's house and start ripping clothes off while saying "I'm gonna get some", you'd better have a gun or flowers and candy in your hands.

 

[Stschil]

I totally agree with the Appeals court. He should have gotten a jury instruction. If shooter is 5'8" / 150 pounds and dumb dead guy is 6'3" / 250, I acquit. Reverse it, and dumb dead guy better be Jet Li, otherwise not so much.

Moral of the story: If you go to somebody's house and start ripping clothes off while saying "I'm gonna get some", you'd better have a gun or flowers and candy in your hands.

"Boy, you got a putty mouf".

 

[CalebToNowhere]

I guess you can either spend your $50k defending your actions in court or fighting for your life in the hospital. I know where I'd rather spend my $50k.

Same here... Or, even worse, your family can spend several $K on your funeral!

 

[ryknoll3]

I totally agree with the Appeals court. He should have gotten a jury instruction. If shooter is 5'8" / 150 pounds and dumb dead guy is 6'3" / 250, I acquit. Reverse it, and dumb dead guy better be Jet Li, otherwise not so much.

Moral of the story: If you go to somebody's house and start ripping clothes off while saying "I'm gonna get some", you'd better have a gun or flowers and candy in your hands.

Why should someone have to attempt to weigh their physical ability against that of their attacker when faced with threat of violence. How is someone supposed to know going in whether the smaller guy is "Jet Li" or not? I'm 6'0" and 200 lbs. I've never been in a fight in my life. How am I supposed to know how I would stack up in a fight against someone smaller than myself? Am I supposed to go a couple rounds with him, then decide, "Crap, he looks to be getting the upper hand, I may face the threat of serious bodily injury. I believe I shall now draw my firearm." Unless it's a clear case of disparity of force (adult vs little kid, able-bodied vs wheelchair bound, etc) one should be able to assume severe bodily harm when faced with an attack. NO way I could ever convict someone for shooting his attacker instead of trying to beat the crap out of him.

 

[Gun Bunny]

Why should someone have to attempt to weigh their physical ability against that of their attacker when faced with threat of violence. How is someone supposed to know going in whether the smaller guy is "Jet Li" or not? I'm 6'0" and 200 lbs. I've never been in a fight in my life. How am I supposed to know how I would stack up in a fight against someone smaller than myself? Am I supposed to go a couple rounds with him, then decide, "Crap, he looks to be getting the upper hand, I may face the threat of serious bodily injury. I believe I shall now draw my firearm." Unless it's a clear case of disparity of force (adult vs little kid, able-bodied vs wheelchair bound, etc) one should be able to assume severe bodily harm when faced with an attack. NO way I could ever convict someone for shooting his attacker instead of trying to beat the crap out of him.

+1

Why should anyone take a beat-down? We all know there are people that still think that is o.k. to give someone a beating if they get upset, or go get some friends to take care of business.

If someone is that threatening to me and I know their intentions are sincere (and I am trying to avoid the altercation), then I am drawing and preparing to fire!

 

[91FXRS]

My question has always been, what if there are 2 or 3 guys would that make a difference in how the courts look at it?

 

[japartridge]

I totally agree with the Appeals court. He should have gotten a jury instruction. If shooter is 5'8" / 150 pounds and dumb dead guy is 6'3" / 250, I acquit. Reverse it, and dumb dead guy better be Jet Li, otherwise not so much.

Moral of the story: If you go to somebody's house and start ripping clothes off while saying "I'm gonna get some", you'd better have a gun or flowers and candy in your hands.

hmmm, I don't know about that, I'm 6'7" and 357#... If someone comes at me with fists, I'm going to defend myself in anyway I can to neutralize the threat. now having said that I must say I doubt I would pop someone for threatening to beat my ass unless they were 7'10" and 475#!

Love your moral of the story!

 

[japartridge]

My question has always been, what if there are 2 or 3 guys would that make a difference in how the courts look at it?

don't know if the court would look at it differently, but I know I'd be makin' some popcorn if you catch my drift...

The odds are too greatly stacked against you if it is 2 or 3 on 1. If I am ever threatened by 2 or more individuals, then the ME will have to send out multiple vehicles... I will not allow the possibility of my daughters growing up without a father happen!

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Why should someone have to attempt to weigh their physical ability against that of their attacker when faced with threat of violence. How is someone supposed to know going in whether the smaller guy is "Jet Li" or not? I'm 6'0" and 200 lbs. I've never been in a fight in my life. How am I supposed to know how I would stack up in a fight against someone smaller than myself? Am I supposed to go a couple rounds with him, then decide, "Crap, he looks to be getting the upper hand, I may face the threat of serious bodily injury. I believe I shall now draw my firearm." Unless it's a clear case of disparity of force (adult vs little kid, able-bodied vs wheelchair bound, etc) one should be able to assume severe bodily harm when faced with an attack. NO way I could ever convict someone for shooting his attacker instead of trying to beat the crap out of him.

My point was that it's the totality of the circumstance. If you are "attacked" by someone that could not obviously inflict significant pain on you and you escalate to deadly force, going to prison should be a reasonable expectation and consequence of your decision. Fair? That's for a jury to decide.

+1

Why should anyone take a beat-down? We all know there are people that still think that is o.k. to give someone a beating if they get upset, or go get some friends to take care of business.

If someone is that threatening to me and I know their intentions are sincere (and I am trying to avoid the altercation), then I am drawing and preparing to fire!

Who said anything about taking a beat down?

Preparing? If you're not prepared to fire you should remain holstered up.

 

[Gun Bunny]

Who said anything about taking a beat down?.

In the story the person was acting very aggressive, going to get very physical, cause great bodily harm, hence a "beat down", that was what I as talking about!

Preparing? If you're not prepared to fire you should remain holstered up

What if you draw and they back down? Shoot anyway? No! There is a major decision you have to make even fearing for your life!

It happened to me about 15 years ago. I didn't start it, I didn't cause it, but two guys thought it would be fun to give me a "beat-down" until they saw that it would be better to find someone easier to have fun with!!! I was prepared to fire, but I didn't. I thank God that I didn't have to fire(hope I never do).

I am to old to take a beating and much to young to die!

 

[finity]

What if you draw and they back down? Shoot anyway? No! There is a major decision you have to make even fearing for your life!

I think what Semperfi is saying is that if you're to the point of drawing in a "I need it right NOW!" situation then you better be planning to shoot "right NOW!".

If your plan is to draw & THEN decide whether to shoot after you see what their reaction to your draw is then YOU WILL LOSE if they decide to keep coming.

Action always beats reaction.

It's way safer for you to decide to shoot when you draw UNLESS you have a reason to believe they HAVE broken off the attack than it is to to decide to wait to shoot after you draw unless you have a reason to believe they HAVEN'T broken off the attack.

I hope you can see the small but hugely important distinction.

That is distinctly different from drawing in preparation for something that MIGHT be unfolding in which a gun would be needed. In that case no one is saying to shoot as soon as you draw it since you will probably have time to assess the situation first.