United States v. Peterson

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit · 1973 · Criminal Law

Criminal LawSelf-DefenseJury SelectionManslaughterself-defenseaggressorprovocationretreat

Facts

Keitt and two companions went to the alley behind Peterson's house to remove windshield wipers from Peterson's inoperable car. After a verbal exchange, Peterson went into his house, got a pistol, returned to the yard, loaded it, warned Keitt not to move, and threatened to kill him if he came in. Keitt got out of his car, briefly approached, then returned to get a lug wrench and advanced toward Peterson with it raised; Peterson, standing about ten feet away with the pistol pointed at him, shot Keitt in the face. Peterson offered no evidence at trial, but the government introduced his post-arrest statement claiming he got scared and fired, insisting he meant only to scare Keitt.

Issue

Whether the trial court erred in refusing Peterson's requested voir dire questions, in instructing the jury that it could consider whether Peterson was the aggressor and whether he failed to retreat safely, and in denying a judgment of acquittal on the ground that the evidence established self-defense as a matter of law.

Rule

Deadly self-defense is a doctrine of necessity. It requires an actual or apparent, unlawful, and immediate threat of deadly force; an honest and objectively reasonable belief of imminent death or serious bodily harm; and an honest and objectively reasonable belief that deadly force is necessary. A person who provokes, encourages, or otherwise promotes the fatal encounter cannot claim homicidal self-defense unless he in good faith withdraws and communicates that withdrawal. In the District, retreat remains relevant to necessity; at least where the defendant is not blameless, failure to retreat safely may be considered with all the circumstances in deciding whether the defendant used more force than justified. On voir dire, exclusion of requested questions is reversible only if the trial judge exceeded the bounds of discretion to the defendant's prejudice.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Baltimore, Nolan Price was arguing outside a row house with Devin Cole over a dented bicycle. Devin stood fifteen feet away with empty hands, shouting that Nolan would 'regret this next week.' Nolan immediately pulled a concealed pistol and shot Devin, later claiming he honestly feared future retaliation.

If Nolan is charged with homicide and raises deadly self-defense, which is the strongest basis for rejecting the defense?

Explanation. Deadly self-defense is a doctrine of necessity. It requires an actual or apparent unlawful and immediate threat of deadly force, plus an honest and objectively reasonable belief that deadly force is necessary to avoid imminent death or serious bodily harm. A threat of future retaliation does not satisfy immediacy, so the defense can be rejected on that ground alone.