State v. Abbott case brief

 

• State v Abbott- there was a fight b/w Scarano and ∆. A jury could find Scarano as the aggressor. His dad joined the fight armed w/ a hatchet, and his mom w/ a knife. All of the Scarano’s were hit w the hatchet. ∆ claimed that they were hit while struggling for the hatchet. A jury could find that ∆ intentionally inflicted the blows.
  • A person has a duty to retreat before using deadly force to defend himself, but he need only retreat where he knows that he can do so w/ complete safety.
  • The burden is on the ∆ to produce evidence to support the defense.
    • The state has the burden or proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defense is not true.
    • One need not retreat before using non-deadly force.
    • “No retreat” advocates The manly thing is to hold one’s ground and society should not demand what smacks of cowardice
  • You must retreat when you can do so w/ complete safety (believes v. knows degree of confidence)
    • When deciding if someone knows it you must look to the totality of the circumstances
    • “complete safety”- can you stand your ground and kill if you think that if you run away he will throw a twig at you