Criminal Law: U.S. v. Peterson

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Facts
Issue
Holding
Reasoning
Rule

Facts

Benny Peterson, the defendant, came out of his house to find that Charles Keitt, the deceased, and two friends in the back of Peterson’s house stealing the windshield wipers from the defendant’s wrecked car. After a verbal exchange, the defendant went into his house to obtain a gun, at the same time the Keitt and his friends were about to leave. The defendant pointed a gun at Keitt and ordered him not to move, after which Keitt took a lug wrench from his car and approached the defendant. The defendant warned Keitt not to take another step, and after advanced forward the defendant shot and killed Keitt. Peterson was indicted in second murder. Peterson moved for a judgment of acquittal on the ground that the evidences were insufficient to support conviction. The trial judge denied motion and convicted Peterson with manslaughter, to which he appealed on the ground that he shot Keitt in an act of self-defense.

Issue

Should the court consider the act of Benny Peterson shooting Charles Keitt under the given facts as an act of self-defense? Do the facts of the case support the justification of killing in self-defense?

Holding

No. The court found that the exception to the doctrine of retreat is not applicable, and thus the necessity of self-defense was established by the defendant himself. The court adverts to the common rule in establishing, whether the exception to the retreat to the retreat doctrine existed, according to which there is no necessity for killing as long as there is “a safe way open to escape the conflict.”

Reasoning

The legal reasoning for court’s ruling is based on determining the aggressor in the facts of the case, according to which different doctrines were applied. The court logic is based on that Keitt stopped being the assailant as soon as he retreated from the conflict or appeared to do so, stepping in his car and intending to leave. Applying such facts to the exception of the retreat doctrine, which states that “you can stand your ground and use deadly force… if you reasonably believe the attack threatens death or serious bodily injury, the court found it inapplicable as there was a safe route to retreat opened for the defendant. The actions of Keitt explicitly indicated his withdrawal from the confrontation opening the possibility for the defendant to retreat and eliminating the necessity for self-defense. Applying the facts of the case to the “castle doctrine, invoked by the defendant, and according to which he was under no duty to retreat standing in his own yard, the court find such doctrine inapplicable under the circumstances of the case. This doctrine cannot be applied as the defendant became the aggressor, after Keitt ceased being so, and thus the right for self-defense cannot be claimed by the aggressor or the party provoking or stimulating the conflict. The defendant’s fault was apparent in bringing and stimulating the conflict which put a restriction on the castle doctrine.

Rule

Affirmed. The court affirmed the conviction sustaining and upholding the decision of the trial court.

Click Here To Order Now!

Criminal Law: U.S. v. Peterson

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)