Self Defense Claims

Self Defense Claims – Use of Deadly Force vs. Force vs. Justification as a Defense

Under Pennsylvania law, there is a big – often unnoticed – distinction between the use of deadly force for self defense as opposed to the mere use of force for self defense. The distinction is frequently missed by even the most seasoned criminal law practitioners, but is crucial to understanding a defendant’s trial rights and the ability to present (and argue against) evidence. These defenses generally fall under the “justification” defense, which essentially means that the alleged criminal act was a lesser evil and prevented a greater evil.

Use of Deadly Force in a Self Defense Case

In Pennsylvania, a claim of self-defense in a criminal case, where the force used was deadly (as in a gun or knife), requires the defendant to present evidence establishing three key elements: (1) the defendant must have reasonably believed that they were in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury and that it was necessary to use deadly force to prevent such harm; (2) the defendant must have been free from fault in provoking the difficulty which culminated in the use of deadly force; and (3) the defendant must not have violated any duty to retreat. Commonwealth v. Williams, 2017 PA Super 382, Commonwealth v. Jones, 2021 PA Super 250, Commonwealth v. Hannibal, 2018 Phila. Ct. Com. Pl. LEXIS 203.

Once the defendant introduces some evidence to support a self-defense claim, the burden shifts to the Commonwealth to disprove the self-defense claim beyond a reasonable doubt. The Commonwealth can negate the self-defense claim by proving any of the following: that the defendant was not free from fault in provoking or continuing the difficulty, that the defendant did not reasonably believe they were in imminent danger, or that the defendant violated a duty to retreat. Commonwealth v. Williams, 2017 PA Super 382, Commonwealth v. Jones, 2021 PA Super 250, Commonwealth v. Barreto, 2012 Phila. Ct. Com. Pl. LEXIS 499.

Special considerations include the subjective and objective components of the defendant's belief. The defendant must have acted out of an honest, bona fide belief that they were in imminent danger (subjective), and this belief must be reasonable in light of the facts as they appeared to the defendant (objective). Commonwealth v. Mouzon, 617 Pa. 527, Commonwealth v. Smith, 2014 PA Super 165. Additionally, if the defendant's belief that deadly force was necessary was unreasonable, but they genuinely believed they were in imminent danger, they may be found guilty of voluntary manslaughter under the defense of imperfect self-defense. Commonwealth v. Jones, 2021 PA Super 250.

It is also important to note that the use of deadly force is not justifiable if the defendant provoked the use of force against themselves with the intent of causing death or serious bodily injury, or if the defendant knew they could avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating, except when in their dwelling or place of work. § 505.

Furthermore, there is no duty to retreat if the defendant is not engaged in criminal activity, not in illegal possession of a firearm, is attached, has a right to be in the place where attacked, and the other person uses or displays a firearm/deadly weapon. § 505.

Use of Force as a Justification Defense

Justification as a defense to a criminal charge in Pennsylvania is defined under § 503. It allows an actor to avoid criminal liability if they believe their conduct was necessary to avoid a harm or evil to themselves or another, provided that the harm sought to be avoided is greater than that sought to be prevented by the law defining the offense charged. Additionally, the law must not provide exceptions or defenses for the specific situation, and there must be no legislative purpose to exclude the justification claimed. § 503. Commonwealth v. Stiver, 2020 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1015, Commonwealth v. Wall, 372 Pa. Super. 534.
To be entitled to a jury instruction on justification, the actor/defendant must show: (1) they were faced with a clear and imminent harm, not speculative; (2) they could reasonably expect their actions to be effective in avoiding this greater harm; (3) there was no legal alternative to abate the harm; and (4) the legislature has not precluded the defense by a clear and deliberate choice regarding the values at issue. Commonwealth v. Wall, 372 Pa. Super. 534, Commonwealth v. Capitolo, 508 Pa. 372, Commonwealth v. Cannon, 387 Pa. Super. 12.

The key difference between justification and self-defense lies in their application: justification is broader and can apply to various harms or evils, while self-defense specifically pertains to the use of force to protect oneself from immediate unlawful force Commonwealth v. Stiver, 2020 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1015.

Use of Regular Force in a Self Defense Case
Regular self-defense (non-deadly) is specifically codified under § 505. It allows the use of force when the actor believes it is immediately necessary to protect themselves against the use of unlawful force by another person. This statute is crucial to the understanding of self-defense as a legal argument.

In contrast, in a self-defense argument which resulted in the death or serious bodily injury of another, the defendant must reasonably believe they were in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury, did not provoke the incident, and did not violate any duty to retreat. Commonwealth v. Stiver, 2020 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1015, Commonwealth v. Hannibal, 2018 Phila. Ct. Com. Pl. LEXIS 203, Commonwealth v. Mouzon, 617 Pa. 527. Crucially, there is no such duty to retreat codified in a simple use of force as a justification defense.

Therefore, if a criminal defendant punched someone (presumably not deadly or creating a serious bodily injury) there is no duty to retreat. If that same defendant, instead, used deadly force (such as a gun), they would be required to show that they attempted to retreat, an exception applied, or they had no legal option but to use deadly force.