I’ve been following this case out of Bucks County, PA, and it appears the defendant (I suppose I find it hard to believe an attorney would actually make this claim) wanted the jury to believe that shooting her estranged lover in the face was done “unintentionally and as an act of self defense.” If you are going down the road of self-defense, you want to avoid statements that you acted unintentionally or your acts were an accident. Now, frankly, from what I’ve seen reported on this case, there were plenty of other issues for this young woman to negate a claim of self-defense, but trying to spin a tale involving two mutually exclusive legal defenses doesn’t help. (The fact that several other “residents” of Bucks County prison testified that she bragged about killing her “sugar daddy” probably didn’t help. Additional note: if you want to claim self-defense, try to avoid creating a nick name for yourself in prison such as “sugaslayer.”)
Back on topic: self-defense is an affirmative defense. It is, therefore, legally an intentional act. One you claim you did, and in fact, you would do again if put in the same situation. An accident is the exact opposite. It is unintentional. If you find yourself saying “I didn’t mean for that to happen” then you are saying it was an accident. There are not a lot of people acquitted by claiming their criminal conduct was an accident. If a jury believes it was an accident, especially in the context of armed self-defense, you may reduce, but not eliminating your culpability. Think, going from Murder to Manslaughter. Life as you know it is still over. It is hard for juries, with good reason, to buy that when you point a gun at someone and pull the trigger, you did not intend for the end result to happen.
In Commonwealth v. Harris, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court rejected a self-defense claim because Harris “denied that the shooting was intentional and, instead, said it was caused by mistake or accident as he backed up the stairs.” By doing so, Harris “denied that the act was done intentionally in defense of self. Under such circumstances, therefore, a defense of self-defense is not available to such a person because it is mutually exclusive of the defense of accident or mistake.” See Commonwealth v. Harris, 665 A.2d 1172, 1175 (Pa. 1995).
The following transcript excerpt of the prosecutor cross-examining Harris during trial is cringe-worthy and demonstrates just how badly you can shoot yourself in the foot with a mixed message:
Q: How did you know you were going to the district?
A: Because of the way the situation looks, because I know they had to get a report.
Q: Because you knew you did something wrong; didn't you, sir?
A: No. It was self-defense, but it was an accident of me backing up the steps.
Q: Was it an accident, sir, or was it self-defense, because they are not the same thing.
A: Well, accident; excuse me on that.
Q: So, if it was an accident you were not fearful for your life; is that right?
A: That is right.
Q: Your life was not in jeopardy if it was an accident.
Commonwealth v. Harris, 665 A.2d 1172, 1174 (Pa. 1995).
The lesson here is if you carry a gun for self-protection, any claim of self-protection is an intentional act, not an accident. You don’t get to present both and let the jury pick which one.* Frankly, if your only claim is it was an accident, a trial judge is unlikely to give the jury a self-defense instruction at all.
* Always an oddball state when it comes to the law, Pennsylvania appears to permit in a very limited circumstance to allow both a self-defense and a “mistake of fact” instruction. See Commonwealth v. Scott. I happen to think the dissenting opinion in Scott is correct and the majority conflates one aspect of a self-defense instruction (the “reasonable, but mistaken belief” language) with a separate “mistake of fact” instruction. Perhaps I’ll discuss Scott more fully in another post.
In the “play stupid games, win stupid prizes” department, a GGWG is spending 10 to 20 years behind bars for shooting another man at church. The Pennsylvania Superior Court recently affirmed his conviction, rejecting his claim that he was defending himself in Commonwealth v. Storms.
Storms had a valid license to carry firearms and was carrying in church. He also had the terrible sense to purchase a “conceal carry badge.” As if buying a badge isn’t bad enough, he then pulled the badge during an altercation with an unruly parishioner at church. As noted by the Court, “[Appellant] had a permit to carry a concealed weapon. As soon will become relevant, he also obtained a gold concealed weapon permit ‘badge.’ The unofficial badge is not issued in connection with the permit but can be obtained on the Internet.” Storm then inserted himself into a situation he frankly should have stayed out of, and let actual badged law enforcement handle.
An unruly parishioner caused a bit of scene at Storms’ church one Sunday. Ushers tried to calm the man down, and the associate pastor told them to back away and call the police. At this point, Storms should have stayed out of it. The unruly gentleman, soon to be a victim, was calm by all witness testimony, had been given notice to vacate, and police were on the way. This was a simple defiant trespass at this point which police could have handled. Instead, Storms wanted more done, and approached with the intent of removing the victim from church.
The trial court recounts what happened next:
With the two separated by a row of chairs, [Appellant] asked [Decedent] to go outside with him. When [Decedent] refused, [Appellant] flashed his unofficial concealed weapon permit badge. [Decedent] recognized it as a fake, telling [Appellant] as much in colorful language. [Appellant] then revealed his 9-millimeter pistol. The victim reacted by punching [Appellant] in the face and proceeding toward him. [Appellant] absorbed the blow and, rather than retreat down the open aisle behind him or call for help from the hundreds of people in church, squared himself into a ready fire stance and shot the unarmed [Decedent] twice. One of the bullets pierced [Decedent]’s heart and he died soon thereafter despite life-saving efforts by fellow parishioners and emergency medical responders.
There was unquestionably a 20 year age difference between the two, and Storms testified he believed the victim was “younger, bigger, faster, and stronger” than him, could kill him, and would take his gun and use it. While this may all undoubtedly have been true, a disparity of size and strength, as well as a generalized fear of having your gun taken, does not excuse “continuing the difficulty that results in the slaying” nor failing to retreat when it was safe to do so.
Brandishing a fake “badge” unquestionably continued – created, in fact – a difficulty that was not present until Storms intervened. The victim was calm and police were on there way. The badge elicited an unsurprising reaction from the victim and escalated his anger, causing him to focus on Storms. Now, it is absolutely true that a citizen may make an arrest in Pennsylvania. See 18 Pa.C.S. 508(b). However, one cannot create the need to use deadly force by inserting oneself into a situation. You lose the “mantle of innocense.” Juries do not buy that, and neither did the appellate court here.
Ditch the badge. Leave the arresting to the professionals, and you won’t spend 10 to 20 years in jail like Storms is.