Right of self-defense in Maryland

src: awaredefensebootcamps.com

In the state of Maryland , self-defense is largely governed by case law, but there are also laws.

Video Right of self-defense in Maryland

General Principles

Maryland continues to follow the general legal principles of using force to defend itself, despite the law (discussed below) on the issue of immunity from civil suits for the use of force to defend a home or business.

In the case of Baltimore Transit Co. v. Faulkner , 179 Md. 598, 20 A.2d 485 (1941), which involves a civil suit for assault and battery, the Maryland Court of Appeal so forth the general legal principles of general self-defense doctrine:

The law of self-defense justifies the action taken with reasonable beliefs about immediate harm. If the injury is committed by a defendant in self-defense that can be held accountable, he or she can not be criminally punished or responsible for damages in civil action.... A person who attempts to justify an attack on the grounds that he is acting in self-defense must show that he does not use force over demanding demands. The conviction of a defendant in an act to attack that the plaintiff intended to harm him physically can not support self-defense unless such conviction as a wise person will entertain in the same situation. The jury should be instructed to justify assault and battery in self-defense. The situation should be as it can cause an average man to be careful to carry out such an attack to protect himself. The question of whether the defendant's belief that he will be hurt is natural in all circumstances is a question for judges' consideration.

Id. , 179 Md at 600-01, 20 A.2d at 487.

The Court of Appeals said in the case that, even if the plaintiff had hit the defendant's first employee, the plaintiff was still entitled to win in action for the battery if the defendant's employee, in deflecting the plaintiff's actions, "used unreasonable and excessive force, meaning force like a wise man will not be used under all circumstances in this case. " Id. , 179 Md at 600, 20 A.2d at 487.

Maps Right of self-defense in Maryland

Use of Deadly Power in Self-Defense

Maryland also continues to follow the general legal principles of the problem when one can use lethal force to defend oneself. In the case of Country v. Faulkner , 301 Md. 482, 485, 483 A.2d 759, 761 (1984), the Maryland Appellate Court summarizes these principles, and declares that murder, in addition to crime killings, is justified on the basis of self-defense if the following criteria are met:

(1) The defendant must have reasonable grounds to believe himself or herself about the imminent danger of death or the serious harm of the attacker or potential attacker;

(2) The accused must really believe himself in this danger;

(3) Defendants who claim self-defense rights should not be aggressors or provoke conflict;

(4) The power used must be nonsensical and exaggerated, that is, the power must not be stronger than the urgent demands.

Lihat juga Roach v. State , 358 Md. 418, 429-30, 749 A.2d 787, 793 (2000).

Additionally, when a person is in someone's home, one can use lethal force against an attacker if lethal force is necessary to prevent an attacker from committing a crime involving the use of force, violence, or shock (such as murder, robbery, robbery, rape, or arson). View Crawford v. State , 231 Md. 354, 190 A.2d 538 (1963).

src: bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com

Assignments for Backward and Castle Doctrine

Maryland also follows the general rule of law that, outside one's home, a person, before using lethal force to defend himself, has the duty "to withdraw or to avoid harm if such means are within his power and consistent with his salvation." " DeVaughn v. State , 232 Md. 447, 453, 194 A.2d 109, 112 (1963), cert rejected , 376 AS 527 (1964), quotes Bruce v. State , 218 Md. 87, 97, 145 A.2d 428, 433 (1958). See also Burch v. State , 346 Md. 253, 283 , 696 A.2d 443, 458 (1997).

But one does not have to retreat if it is not safe for the person to do so. "[I] the danger of the defendant is imminent, he does not have to retreat but has the right to defend his land and to defend and protect himself." Bruce v. State , supra , 218 Md at 97, 145 A.2d at 433.

The obligation to retreat also does not apply if a person is attacked in his own home. "A man who faces the danger of an attack on his residence does not need to retreat from his home to avoid danger, but instead may stand in his place and, if necessary to repel an attack, can kill the assailant." Crawford v. State , 231 Md. 354, 361, 190 A.2d 538, 541 (1963). The Court of Appeal said in Crawford, a case in which the defendant fatally shot a younger man who tried to break into his house to beat and rob him:

"* * * A man is not bound to retreat from his home He may stand on the ground there and kill a [y] a person who tries to commit a crime in it, or who tries to enter with force for the purpose of committing a crime, or inflict great physical harm to a prisoner. In such a case the owner or family member, or even the housebreaker, can meet the intruder in the doorway, and prevent him from entering in any way deemed necessary by the urgency, even to take his life, and the murder will be justified. "

Id. , 231 Md. at 361, 190 A.2d at 542, citing Clark and Marshall, Law of Crimes , (ed. 6. Wingersky rev.), Ã,§ 7.03, pages 436-37.

This principle is known as the "Castle Doctrine", "a name derived from the basic principle that 'the house of a man is his palace' and his main retreat." Barton v. State , 46 Md. Application. 616, 618, 420 A.2d 1009, 1010-1011 (1980). A man "is not bound to escape and become a fugitive from his own house, because, if it is necessary, will, theoretically, have no protection for him anywhere in the world." Barton , 46 Md. Application. at 618, 420 A.2d in 1010.

One does not have to be the owner of a house or head of a household to be able to use "Castle Doctrine." On the contrary, "every member of the household, whether he has property rights or leases within the property, is in his ambition..." Barton , 46 Md. Application. on 619-20, 420 A.2d at 1011.

However, even at home, the level of strength used for self-defense can not be "overdone." Crawford v. Country , supra , 231 Md. at 362, 190 A.2d at 542. Citing a treatise on criminal law, the Court of Appeals said in Crawford :

"This is a murder that can be justified to kill to prevent crime from violence or shock.

Crime in life prevention that can be taken is like that and just as it is done by force, violence, and shock, such as murder, robbery, robbery, rape, or arson.

* * *

* * *

"It is also important that killing is necessary to prevent the crime being questioned.If other methods can prevent commissions, killing is not justified, all other ways to prevent crime must first be exhausted."

Id. , 231 Md. in 362-63, 190 A.2d on 542, citing, 1 Wharton Criminal Law and Procedures (Anderson Ed., 1957), Ã,§ 206, on pages 453-55.

src: c8.alamy.com

Burden of Self Defense

Although self-defense is generally called "defense", a defendant who uses self-defense in a criminal case in Maryland has no burden to prove that he is acting in self-defense.

Conversely, the defendant in a criminal case only has a burden of production on self-defense issues. This means that a defendant who wishes to request a doctrine only needs to "produce a problem" by introducing some evidence that he is acting in self-defense. If the defendant meets the burden of production and thus generates the problem, then it is prosecution that has the burden of proving that the defendant is not acting in self-defense. In other words, when the defendant meets his production burden on self-defense issues, the prosecutor has a burden of persuasion on the issue of self-defense.

If the defendant does not produce defensive matters, then the prosecutor does not have to prove that the defendant did not act defensively.

The Maryland Court of Appeals adopted these principles in the case of the State v. Evans , 278 Md. 197, 207-08, 362 A.2d 629, 636 (1976). The court says allocating production and persuasion loads in this way is required by the Supreme Court's decision at Mullaney v. Wilbur , 421 U.S. 684 (1975).

In the case of civil , on the contrary, self-defense remains a defense, which means that the burden of proving its application is the defendant. View Baltimore Transit Co. v. Faulkner, supra, 179 Md. at 600-01, 20 A.2d at 487.

src: www.usmaltd.com

Juror Pattern Patterns on Self-Defense in Criminal Cases

If the job-to-retreat criteria are met, then the following self-defense criteria are examined, as set out in the Maryland Crime Jury Instruction Directive. Optional or alternative inclusion into the judge's instructions is enclosed by & lt; & gt;. The phrases surrounded by () are replaced by specific cases of the case.

Self-defense (MPJI-Cr 5:07)

Self defense is a defense, and the defendant must be found not guilty if all three of the following factors are present:

1. The defendant really believes that & lt; he & gt; & lt; he & gt; are in immediate and imminent danger of bodily harm.
2. The defendant's conviction is natural.
3. The defendant uses no more power than is necessary to defend & lt; own & gt; & lt; myself & gt; considering the danger that is threatening or real.

"Deadly power is the amount of power that is reasonably calculated to cause death or serious bodily harm.If the defendant is known to have used lethal powers, then it must be decided whether the use of lethal force is natural.Leading force is reasonable if the defendant really has the confidence that it makes sense that the aggressor forces are or will be deadly and that the defendant needs a deadly force response. "

"In addition, before using lethal force, the defendant is required to make all reasonable efforts to withdraw.The defendant does not have to resign if the defendant is in his & her house & gt; house, unsafe retreat, unknown to the defendant, the defendant is robbed, the defendant legally arrests the victim, if the accused is known not to use lethal force, the defendant has no obligation to withdraw. "

Defense of Others (MPJI-Cr 5: 1)

The defense of others is a defense, and the defendant must be found innocent if all of the following four factors are present:

1. The defendant really believes that the defended person is in immediate and imminent danger of physical danger.
2. The defendant's conviction is natural.
3. The defendant uses no more power than is necessary to defend a defended person with threatened or actual strength.
4. The defendant's purpose in using violence is to help the defended person.

Habitat Defense - Deadly Strength (MPJI-Cr 5: 2)

The defense of one's home is defense, and the defendant must be found innocent when the following three factors are present:

1. The defendant really believes that (the victim) has committed & lt; just about to commit & gt; crime (crime) at & lt; at & gt; home of the accused.
2. The defendant's conviction is natural.
3. The defendant uses no more force than is necessary to defend against the action (the victim).

Property Defense - Nondeadly Force (MPJI-Cr 5: 02.1)

Property defense is a defense, and the defendant must be found innocent if all three of the following factors are present:

1. The defendant really believes that (the victim) illegally harasses & lt; just about to interfere unlawfully & gt; with property.
2. The defendant's conviction is natural.
3. The defendant uses no more power than is necessary to defend against the victims' interference with the property.

"Someone may not use lethal force to defend his & her; & lt; & lt; his & gt; properties. Lethal force is the amount of power calculated fairly to cause death or serious bodily harm."

src: res.cloudinary.com

Jury Patterns on Martial Arts in Civil Cases

Maryland Civil Pattern Jury Instruction 15: 4 (a) & amp; (b) menyatakan:

A. Self Defense, Other or Property

People shall not be liable for attacks or batteries if they defend themselves, others, their property or their employer's property, as long as they use only the power that is reasonably necessary to protect themselves, others, their property, or their employer's property from actual attacks or imminent threats of danger. The threat of imminent danger does not mean that one has to wait until the other person takes the first step.

b. Use of Dead Power

One can use lethal force only as a last resort. The person should reasonably believe that he or the third person is in danger of serious bodily harm and there is no means of defense or other capability worthy of escape.

src: c8.alamy.com

Civil Immunity

While the use of force for self-defense can be justified, self-defending people still run the risk of being sued by attackers for monetary damages. In 2010, the Maryland General Assembly passed, and Governor Martin O'Malley signed a bill to address the issue and to grant immunity to the civil suit in certain cases where a person uses force, including lethal force, to defend or house or business. The law - Ã,§ 5-808 of the Court and Judicial Process Article from the Maryland Code - provides as follows:

(a) In this section, "person" does not include any government entity.

(B) A person shall not be liable for damages for personal injury or death of a person entering a residence or place of business of an individual if:

(1) The person is reasonably certain that a deadly force or force is required to repel an attack by an individual; and

(2) The amount and nature of force that the person uses is reasonable in that situation.

(c) The subsection (b) of this section does not apply to persons convicted of violent crimes pursuant to Ã, 14-101 of the Criminal Law Article, second-level attacks, or arbitrary harm arising from such circumstances. described in paragraph (b) of this section.

(d) The court may provide reasonable attorney fees and attorneys to a defendant who persists in the defense under this section.

(e) This section shall not limit or annul the immunity from civil or defense liabilities available to a person under any other provision of the Code or to any general law.

The law essentially codified the general rule of self-defense. It is arguable that the law making "Castle Doctrine" applies to actions taken to defend one's business. But the law is not entirely clear about it, because of the requirement that the force "makes sense under the circumstances" and the absence of a special language that says the defendant can maintain his stand in business. Importantly, the law also states that, if a defendant applies in defense under the law, the court "may" order the plaintiff to pay the defendant's fees and reasonable attorney's fees. The law further states that the immunity it created does not apply if the defendant has been convicted of a specific criminal charge in connection with the incident.

According to its provisions, the law does not apply to criminal prosecution.

The General Assembly passed a law nine years after the incident that occurred on the night of March 19, 2001, in which one or both co-owners of a cement company in Glyndon, Maryland fired on three intruders at the company premises, killing one of them and injuring two others. The place of the company had also been burglarized two nights before, and two co-owners (brothers) were staying overnight in business to look after it. In February 2004, the plantation and the young son of the deceased intruder sued two brothers and their company for compensation. According to an online record of the Maryland court system, the plaintiffs canceled the lawsuit on January 28, 2005. It is not listed in the online record whether or not the case was resolved.

Within days of the shooting in 2001, the bill was introduced in each of the two chambers of the General Assembly to protect business owners from civil litigation for lethal force against someone "illegally and forcibly entering" the business. The state Senate passed the bill, but the House of Delegates did not take action on the size or on the bill that had been introduced in the House. In 2004, 2005, 2008 and 2009, House of Delegates passed the bill on this issue, but no bill was issued from the committee in the state Senate. The law set out by the General Assembly in 2010 has words that are different from the previous billing language.

src: i.ytimg.com

See also

• The Castle Doctrine

src: championboxingfitness.com

References

Source of the article : Wikipedia