Ewell v. United States, 11-CM-1593 (decided Sept. 5, 2013)
Players: Blackburne-Rigsby, Oberly, Ferren. Opinion by Judge Blackburne-Rigsby. Donald L. Dworsky for Mr. Ewell. Trial judge: Yvonne Williams.
Facts: In this simple assault bench trial, the Court reversed and remanded for the trial judge to apply correct self-defense standards. The trial court found that the complainant, a woman much smaller than the defendant, started a fight by throwing a hard cup full of vodka at the defendant, causing him to bleed, and that he responded by striking her one time. The trial court found the defendant guilty of simple assault, ruling that his actions did not represent a proper use of self defense.
Issue 1: Whether a defendant loses the benefit of a self-defense claim when he used more force than the minimum necessary in the situation.
Issue 2: Whether a defendant who uses non-deadly force in self defense must perceive a threat of imminent “serious” bodily harm.
Holding 1: No. The correct legal question is whether the use of force was “disproportionate to the initial aggression faced.”
Holding 2: No. The correct legal question is whether the defendant believed that he was in imminent danger of bodily harm—not imminent danger of serious bodily harm.
Of Note: It is improper for a judge in a self-defense case to focus on whether the defendant could have responded to the aggression of another person by employing less force or seeking an alternative resolution. The focus, instead, is on whether the defendant’s use of force was “disproportionate to the initial aggression faced.” If the use of force was not disproportionate, then it is acceptable under the law of self defense, even if the defendant could have used less force or resolved the situation without the use of force.
How to use: Ewell is helpful for self-defense cases because it makes clear that self-defense law is governed by simple and clear legal rules, and it is not an opportunity for a trial judge to impose her own view of whether the defendant handled a violent situation in the most appropriate or least violent manner possible.
I think the trick is in this inquiry into whether the response was disproportionate. As the Ewell court reminded us, the only times the DCCA has "upheld determinations of excessive force as a matter of law" have involved responses that were "completely disproportionate." And the illustrations in FN 10 show use of deadly force in response to non-deadly initial attacks.
ReplyDelete