Breaking911 posted this story about a woman, clearly high on one or more drugs, entering a home without permission. Rather than being there to commit a crime, she (kindly, I suppose) washed the homeowner’s dishes, sat on the couch, and petted the family dog. BTW, unless somebody washing your dishes or petting your pooch became crimes that I don’t know about, this is not legally Burglary in PA, but felony Criminal Trespass. Anyway, the article is not entirely clear, but the homeowner appears to have been home at the time. She smartly did not engage with the interloper, but the woman had to be there for some time to get some chores done and relax on the couch. Certainly, long enough that the homeowner could have engaged her.
Those with only a general understanding of Castle Doctrine may believe it applies here. Afterall, this woman entered a home and a “man’s home is his castle,” right? Well, yes, but Pennsylvania’s Castle Doctrine is statutorily defined. While it has fairly strong language protecting the homeowner, it does not provide a blank slate for deadly force within the home.
Pennsylvania’s Castle Doctrine provides a presumption that a homeowner has “a reasonable belief that deadly force is immediately necessary to protect himself against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat…” 18 Pa.C.S. § 505(a)(2.1). However, that presumption only holds true if two conditions are met.
First, the individual entering or in the home must have been “unlawfully and forcefully entering, or has unlawfully and forcefully entered and is present within…” the home. Note those two words “unlawfully and forcefully.” Did the woman here unlawfully enter the home? Sure. But did she forcefully enter? Not by the reports. She walked in through the front door.
Second, the actor (i.e., the one using force, so the homeowner) “knows or has reason to believe that the unlawful and forceful entry or act is occurring or has occurred.” Again, it’s pretty clear a homeowner will know who belongs in his or her home. Thus, the unlawful aspect is not difficult to show. But how does the homeowner know the “unlawful” guest sitting on her couch petting her dog “forcefully” entered? She doesn’t, unless maybe she heard the door crash in or the window break. That didn’t happen here.
Now I’m not suggesting that somebody cannot forcefully enter through an unlocked door or window. But I am saying that invoking the Castle Doctrine in Pennsylvania is not a simple manner of somebody enters into your home who doesn’t belong there, so you can use deadly force. The facts and circumstances beyond a person being unlawfully in your home dictate the justified use of deadly force. Evidence that the interloper attempted to forcefully enter or in fact forcefully entered the home is an essential element of successfully invoking the Castle Doctrine.
Our Superior Court recently found that a trial court acted properly in not even giving a Castle Doctrine instruction when the defendant shot through the door at several intoxicated partygoers who attempted to “unlawfully” and “forcefully” enter his residence. See Commonwealth v. Cannavo, 199 A.3d 1232 (Pa. Super 2018). (The concurring opinion, I think, actually has a more sophisticated view of the standard and evidence presented in order to obtain the Castle Doctrine jury instruction.) The Superior Court found that the evidence of the individual who was shot banging on the door demanding entry did not constitute an attempt at forceful entry.
As stated, I don’t think there is any question this woman entered unlawfully. But what facts here indicate that this woman entered forcefully? Not much. And, I’m not simply talking about the fact that she walked through the door because it was unlocked. I think there is an argument that an entry is “forceful” even if the person walks through an unlocked door if the person exhibits behavior that their entry is “forceful” (angry words, threats, aggressive body language, etc.). Or, I think their entry can be “forceful” if it was done surreptitiously or stealthily, which would indicate that they are there to commit some form of a crime. (One of the definitions of a burglary is entering a building with somebody present and committing, attempting or threatening to commit a “bodily injury crime.”)
This lastly gets to the ethical question of Castle Doctrine. While many hold the (mistaken) belief that Castle Doctrine gives you carte blanche to defend yourself in your home, it’s not simply a “shoot first, ask questions later” defense. Do you really want to be responsible for the death of this woman? She’s pretty clearly not a threat during this incident. Maybe she would become a threat, and then that’s a different story. So handling this situation as a homeowner requires careful consideration. I frankly wouldn’t enter the same room as her, but politely and forcefully let her know she needs to leave and not come any further into the home. Because, in the end, she clearly needs help. She’s a drug addict and doesn’t realize what’s going on, what she’s doing, or even where she is. She hardly deserves to die for this transgression, nor do you need it on your conscience.
There is a lot going on in the case below which we could talk about related to a claim of self-defense. The two I think are legally interesting are evidence of consciousness of guilt and admissibility of a defendant’s prior and subsequent bad acts to demonstrate motive, plan, or intent (among other things). Both had a fairly substantial impact not only for the jury in determining Defendant, Sean Atkins’, did not act in self-defense, but for the judge in issuing an aggravated sentence of 7 to 14 years’ incarceration.
The media reported the story (taken from the criminal complaint) as follows:
According to an affidavit of probable cause filed in Magisterial District Judge Glenn K. Manns’ office, Chambersburg police were called to 5 Garber St. for a report of a shooting, and found Tyson Hettenschuller, 19, lying unconscious on the ground in front of the residence, suffering from multiple gunshot wounds. Police and emergency personnel attempted life-saving measures on Hettenschuller at the scene. He was taken to Chambersburg Hospital where he was later pronounced dead.
Witnesses told police there was a fight between a white male resident of the house and a black male. Three other black males reportedly joined in on the fight. At that time, Hettenschuller tried to assist the resident of 5 Garber St. One of the black males, [Defendant, Sean Atkins,] described as being tall with orange hair, then produced a handgun and fired multiple gunshots that hit Hettenschuller. The group of black males then fled east on Martin Avenue.
Two of the males involved in the fight were found and interviewed by police. They said there was a fight at the house and that during the fight, Atkins took out a gun and shot Hettenschuller. Atkins and the other three black males then fled the scene.
Atkins was later located and interviewed at the Chambersburg police station. He told police he was with four friends, and one of his friends said he had an issue with a white male that lived at the Garber Street residence, so the group approached the male at the house and a fight ensued. Atkins and his friends were fighting with the male, and then Hettenschuller. Atkins admitted to police that he produced a handgun and fired at Hettenschuller five times, according to the affidavit.
Police asked Atkins if at any point during the fight he felt afraid or fear for his life. He said no, and that he and his friends were bigger than Hettenschuller and the other male.
Consciousness of Guilt
It’s a well worn evidentiary path that “flight equals guilt.” A jury is entitled to an instruction on the concept because “a defendant’s knowledge may be inferred from the circumstances attendant [to] his flight.” Commonwealth v. Johnson, 838 A.2d 663, 681 (Pa. 2003). In a quick bit of legal research, I found a Pennsylvania case going back as far as 1898 on the issue. See Commonwealth v. Boschino, 34 A. 964 (Pa. 1896).
Frankly, flight looks bad. It especially looks bad when your defense to a crime is your were justified in your actions. (Hint: the Pa. “self-defense” statute is titled “Justification”.) We intuitively know that guilty people run. Guilty people change their clothes to confuse the police. Guilty people toss the weapon they used in “self-defense,” so it’s never recovered. Atkins did all of these things. These are inferences you do not want the prosecution to introduce and the jury to make.
The general rule for self-defense is you stay at the scene after the shooting. Of course, there are exceptions to ever rule, and your immediate safety is paramount. If your attacker’s angry cohorts are still on scene threatening you, it would certainly be better to retreat to a safe location if you can do so safely. If an angry mob gathers after the shooting, then retreating to safety may also be necessary. But in either instance, you have an explanation for temporary flight from the scene, especially if you immediately call the police once you are safe. Does this stop the prosecution from introducing “flight equals guilt”? No. But it does permit your attorney to (1) argue the instruction is inappropriate given the circumstances, and (2) provide an explanation to the jury during closing arguments if the judge gives the instruction.
Exceptions to Admitting Other Crimes, Wrong or Acts
You probably understand the concept of not using a person’s other crimes, wrongs or acts as the only indicator of guilt in a “conventional wisdom” sense.
“Just because little Johnny stole cookies from the cookie jar last week doesn’t mean the empty cookie jar this week was because of him.”
Other crimes, wrongs, or acts are generally “not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.” Pa.R.E. 404(b)(1). An exception to this rule is such acts may be admissible for alleged “other purposes.” The prosecution is not using the acts to show, in essence, “he did this bad thing in 2007 so he must have done this bad thing now.” Instead, the prosecution has a laundry lists of “other purposes” such as proving “motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake or lack of accident.” Pa.R.E. 404(b)(2). Such evidence is colloquially known as “404B evidence.”
Atkins admitted to stealing the gun he was carrying from his uncle. While he claimed he had carried a gun for years for self-protection prior to the incident, he was doing so illegally (as a minor). Further, he carried a gun into an altercation that involved an argument over a drug deal. Such activity can demonstrate a motive or an intent other than self-defense at the time of the shooting.
Trial courts have fairly broad discretion regarding the admissibility of evidence. And, appellate courts use a deferential standard as far as that decision. Meaning, the appellate courts do not often reverse trial courts on evidentiary issues. (And, even if the appellate court thinks the trial judge was wrong, I haven’t even touched on the Phyrric victory that is “harmless error”.)
Atkins’ trial attorney seemed to have a good understanding about how to argue a self-defense claim. He argued important concepts like the speed at which fights happen, the jury putting itself into Atkins’ shoes, and resonable, but mistaken, believe of furtive movements/reaching for a weapon. Yet, there is only so much an attorney can do when a defendant has acted in a manner which does not outwardly (i.e., objectively) demonstrate a belief in his own innocence after a shooting. As an old, wise investigator once told me at a training, “you can argue whatever you want, but juries are very good at figuring out who the asshole was in a fight.” Don’t be the asshole by leaving the scene, trying to hide, and destroying evidence.
The news articles linked below are worth of a read through, not just for the issues discussed here, but also to see how this story played out. Atkins statements at the scene and his testimony at trial were really unhelpful (especially regarding his “subjective” belief he was in danger). The articles give a good feel for how the prosecution framed this as murder rather the self-defense. You also get a feel for how a jury does not always automatically believe furtive movements as your life is in danger (especially when no weapon is ever found on the victim or at the scene).
Sources for this post (last accessed 5/2/2019):