Most people are aware of the legal defense of “self-defense.” Most people do not know, however, that the law recognizes more than one type of self-defense. Depending on the facts of a case, the accused may be entitled to assert what the law calls “perfect” or “imperfect” self-defense. Each offers its own ways of helping an accused person. When facing a serious criminal matter, you should talk to an experienced Maryland criminal defense lawyer, who can provide insight into the affirmative defenses available under this state’s laws, including self-defense.
In Maryland, “perfect” self-defense requires an accused person to prove that he had an actual fear of “immediate or imminent… bodily harm,” and that this belief was objectively reasonable. “Imperfect” self-defense requires proving that the accused acted on an actual fear of immediate or imminent bodily harm, even if that belief was unreasonable. Perfect self-defense is a complete defense and, when proven, entitles an accused person to an acquittal. Imperfect self-defense negates the element of malice, allowing, for example, a person facing a murder charge to receive a conviction for the lesser crime of voluntary manslaughter.
Recently, the Appellate Court of Maryland weighed in regarding when an accused person is entitled to demand that his jury receive an instruction regarding imperfect self-defense.
The accused, D.H., became involved in a dispute with a man, K.D., outside a convenience store. As D.H. fought with his girlfriend, K.D. approached and told him to “leave her alone.” D.H. allegedly “walked toward [K.D.] while holding ‘something in his hand,’” so K.D. “brandished” an extendable baton. D.H. charged K.D., punching and stabbing him several times.
The state charged D.H. with, among other crimes, attempted first-degree murder. The jury eventually convicted D.H. of attempted second-degree murder.
The Law Only Requires ‘Some Evidence’
D.H. appealed, arguing that the trial judge wrongfully refused to instruct the jury on imperfect self-defense. The law in Maryland says that an accused person is entitled to a jury instruction if he provided the court with “some evidence” of his subjective (and arguably unreasonable) fear that he faced immediate or imminent death or serious bodily harm.
In D.H.’s case, the defense presented evidence that K.D. allegedly “approached him ‘aggressively’ from behind and then attacked him, hitting him in the face with a metal object.” The defense also offered the accused’s testimony that he stabbed the victim to protect himself and stopped stabbing the man because “he had no reason” to keep going. That alone was enough to constitute “some evidence” that the accused felt he was in immediate danger and that the degree of force he used was subjectively “necessary and reasonable,” thus triggering a right to an instruction on imperfect self-defense.
Even though the state offered evidence refuting the accused’s statements, that prosecution evidence was irrelevant. As long as the defense clears the “some evidence” threshold, a trial court must give the instruction, regardless of the prosecution’s opposing evidence.
Criminal defense strategies and tactics can come in many different forms. An affirmative defense (or defenses) can be integral to getting justice. If you (or a loved one) face criminal charges in this state, the experienced Maryland criminal defense attorneys at Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC are here to help. We possess the hands-on experience and in-depth knowledge necessary to help you advance all viable means of defending yourself, including presenting affirmative defenses. Contact us today at 301-519-2801 or via our online form to set up your consultation to find out more.