State
v. Norman (NC Sup. Ct. 1989) – D
was convicted of voluntary manslaughter. App Ct. granted a new trial
because the trial court refused to submit a possible verdict of
perfect SD.
20 years of abuse…burns
prostitution…suicide attempts. D tried several avenues to protect
herself.
Holding: The Supreme Ct
of NC found that it was not a necessity to kill her husband because
she shot him 3 times while he was sleeping. It was therefore not
life threatening. She also was not entitled to imperfect SD.
- Perfect Self-Defense: At the time of the killing it appeared to D and she believed it to be necessary to kill her husband to save herself from imminent death or great bodily harm.
- Imperfect Self-Defense: When D is the initial aggressor, but without intent to kill or to seriously injure the decedent and decedent escalates the confrontation to necessity for D.
Rule: There is a
difference between inevitable and imminent. Just
because D thinks her abuse is inevitable does not mean that it’s
imminent. To hold otherwise would relax the definition of imminent.
Therefore, the court erred in granting new trial.
Non-confrontational
SD – The majority of BWS prosecution
involves women who kill their abusers in the course of a direct
confrontation. However, flexibility on women who kill in SD due to
BWS is growing.
No comments:
Post a Comment