Posted on 07/31/2006 9:30:57 AM PDT by kiriath_jearim
'Home intruder' law vague to judge
Refuses to dismiss murder charge
By Brandon Ortiz HERALD-LEADER STAFF WRITER
A Fayette judge struggled to make sense of Kentucky's new "home intruder" law yesterday, calling the National Rifle Association-backed legislation confusing, vague and poorly written.
"I'm not quite sure that the drafters had even a marginal knowledge of criminal law or Kentucky law," Circuit Judge Sheila Isaac said. "It is absolutely silent on the court's role."
Isaac rejected James Adam Clem's request to have his murder charges dismissed because of the recently enacted law, which grants immunity to homeowners who use deadly force to defend themselves from robbers or intruders.
The law says a person has the right to use lethal force if he has "reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred." It also applies if a person is attacked in a public place "where he or she has a right to be."
Clem, 27, says he killed Keith Newberg, 25, in self-defense after Newberg allegedly attacked him upon entering Clem's apartment early in the morning of Aug. 9, 2004.
Isaac sided with prosecutors, who said that whether Newberg was an intruder or had committed a crime is a factual question that jurors must decide.
"To go into whether he is immune clearly requires fact-intensive decisions" that judges should not make, Isaac said.
Prosecutors around the state have expressed concerns about the law, which they say is difficult to interpret and raises numerous questions.
In an interview yesterday, University of Kentucky law professor Robert Lawson, widely considered the state's foremost expert on criminal law, sharply criticized the law. It was approved overwhelmingly by the General Assembly this spring, and it took effect this month.
"It is the worst legislation I have ever seen in 40 years," said Lawson, the principal drafter of Kentucky's penal code, which was adopted in 1975.
Supporters of Senate Bill 38, also called the castle doctrine, said that previous law required Kentuckians to retreat from robbers breaking into their home or car.
Not so, Lawson says: Unlike many states, Kentucky never had such an obligation.
When drafting the penal code, the General Assembly voted down such a requirement, he said.
A 1931 Kentucky Supreme Court decision, Gibson vs. Commonwealth, bluntly spells out the right of self-defense without retreat.
"It is the tradition that a Kentuckian never runs," the opinion states. "He does not have to."
May be state's 1st such case
Lawson said the home intruder law "is aimed at a problem that didn't exist" and will create "huge problems of interpretation."
The politically powerful NRA has convinced 15 states to pass castle-doctrine laws since 2005. The doctrine has its origins in English common law.
Supporters in the legislature, who acknowledge the NRA's influence in drafting the bill, say it is needed to protect homeowners from being sued or prosecuted for shooting intruders.
Yesterday, Judge Isaac and attorneys on both sides debated what the law means to Clem's case. It was the first time in Fayette County, and possibly the state, that the home intruder law has reached the courts.
The Kentucky Supreme Court has never ruled on the law, giving Isaac no precedent to follow. Because she is a circuit judge, her ruling does not create precedent, and it applies only to Clem's case.
Isaac said the law provides no guidance for how courts should apply the immunity provision, which bars police from even arresting somebody who defends himself.
It's not clear what the standard of proof is or how the burden of proof shifts, she said.
"We are all kind of treading on unknown water," she said.
Clem's trial starts Monday. Isaac said defense attorneys could refile their motion after prosecutors have presented their evidence.
Change in judges
Isaac is now presiding over the case. Judge Mary Noble recused herself this week.
A written order of recusal has not yet been entered. But Tucker Richardson, one of Clem's defense attorneys, contributed to Noble's Supreme Court campaign against Justice John Roach.
Noble previously has said she does not track who contributes to her campaign. Her campaign manager has said Noble learned of Richardson's donations only after the family of a victim in another case criticized her for not recusing herself in the trial of Keita Hayden, who was acquitted of murder charges.
NO mention in this article of any testimony other than that of the victim who acted in self defense.
That's true, to an extent. For instance, whether the dead man was genuinely an intruder, or was invited in and then killed by the occupant, is a question of fact that is extremely relevant.
Agreed. It would be interesting to see a the text of the law. There are a lot of poorly written statutes on the books. They are hard to interpret, and often make bad precedent when they are.
What a maroon.
The "Court" has no business in the law whatsoever; it's their to facilitate the rights of the accused and the offended parties, coupled with a JURY who determines the outcome based on the facts.
This Judge has the mis-conception that she is some sort of God or something, and only THE JUDGE can properly determine right and wrong..........
People seems at times that they don't have any basic rights that supposedly were guranteed in the Constitution.
Dear Sheila,
Ever hear of "a man's home is his castle"? He/she has a right to protect it including with the use of deadly force. Got it?
Funny. The perp ended up understanding the law quite clearly.
How is a sincere criminal, trying hard, going to get ahead in his profession if his victim fails to cooperate?
Almost all crime depends on the cooperation of the victim.
If the victim refuses his assigned role, the criminal is placed at a disadvantage, one so severe that it usually takes an understanding and compassionate judge to set right.
LAZARUS LONG
Not so, Lawson says: Unlike many states, Kentucky never had such an obligation.
If the Professor is correct, then why was James Adam Clem arrested and why is he now being prosecuted? The new law didn't create a requirement to arrest and prosecute folks defending their property.
Not a very informative article as to the facts of the case.
Unless I'm mistaken (and that's a real possibility) a judge presiding over a jury trial in a criminal case has the power to unilaterally declare a defendant not guilty or to dismiss the charges against said defendant due to what *he/she* believes to be insufficient evidence and has the power to do that at any point in the proceedings...even after a jury declares that defendant to be guilty.
I'll patient await any lawyer's post telling me that I'm full of beans.
Special interest legislation drafted by lobbyists and passed quickly by legislators anxious to appear fighting crime, or whatever the subject may be, is often the worst drafted, least precise and inarticulate mess that shows up in state and federal statues. When anyone schooled in statutory interpretation looks at a jumbled mess of words such as this it's easy to recognizes that it is unintelligable. The langusge of the Ky. statute is just that. Does the judge find immunity? His job is not as a fact finder unless a party waives a jury trial.
The law professor is an objective and learned observer whom I would trust to make such a conclusion vis-a-vis a kneejerk reaction.
And this report does not make that clear or that the shooter was in fear of his life.
This judge is refusing to apply the law. That makes her the 'activist'.
Do you happen to know the citation for this law? I'd like to take a look at it for myself.
Supporters of Senate Bill 38, also called the castle doctrine, said that previous law required Kentuckians to retreat from robbers breaking into their home or car.
Not so, Lawson says: Unlike many states, Kentucky never had such an obligation.
When drafting the penal code, the General Assembly voted down such a requirement, he said.
So if the homeowner already had the right of self defense without obligation to retreat even before the new law was passed, how is this a big conundrum for the judge?
But according to the law prof qutoed, KY never had a duty to retreat.
Sounds like the judge is miffed that he can't spin the case or just make stuff up that sounds like an "interpretation of the law" as he gives instructions to the jury.
There's not a single judge known to me, and I know many both personally and before whom I appear regularly, who could interpret the Ky. confusion any differently than the judge in question. What is there about ''due process of law'' that bothers you? Before a person can either be adversely subjected to or benefit from a statue it must be capable of clarity and that such a person must know that he is either criminally subject to it or protected by it. In neither instance is the Ky. statute possesed of that clarity and sufficient to make a person knowlegable of what it means when applied to him.
So self defense is an affirmative defense where the burden of proof still falls to the state. Is that about it?
This judge is intentionally ignorant. This law codifies the common law maxim that retreat is not required in ones own home.
The judge does not like the law so the judge says it is controversial. Sooooo big brother.
"In neither instance is the Ky. statute possesed of that clarity and sufficient to make a person knowlegable of what it means when applied to him."
How did that happen and, more important, how can it be rectified?
I don't know.
I don't think that "fear of his life" is required for it to be considered a self-defense shooting. However, there must be some evidence available, other than "two men, one dead"! Damage indicating forced entry, perhaps, or the dead man was armed. These would support the occupant's report of what happened.
That's why it's a question of fact, to me, rather than of law.
Good post - just what I was trying to say, only more clear!
What do you base that on? Do yo have the text of the statute? If so, kindly share it with us so we can decide for ourselves.
I've known a few judges myself and . . . I'll put it this way . . . a judge is just a another lawyer -- but with too much power.
Agreed on all points. I knew when I posted it some one would point that out but I'm just too lazy to type out "fear of bodily harm, theft, defense etc." :)
She forgot nebulous and well-financed.
All clear, then :-). I'm usually posting in haste, myself!
http://www.lrc.ky.gov/record/06RS/SB38.htm
Still researching.
Your statement is incorrect: As a general rule, the jury is responsible for determining whether the use of deadly force was reasonable under the factual circumstances, even if those circumstances are not in dispute. IMO, the judge made the legally correct decision.
ALL judges get the "black robe fever".
Judicial colleges DO teach them that they are the "god" of their courtroom. Remember MOST have criminal contempt powers.
Most judge KNOW they can get away with ANY misinterpritation of the law because VERY FEW cases go up on appeal. This is due to the cost, the need for bonds in civil cases, or the fact the person placed in jail ends the matter since they are financially destroyed.
Liberal judges strike again. Are you a member of the NRA?
"The law, as stated above, clearly says that the homeowner, not a jury, is to decide if a crime was being committed."
So let's say I invite you over to my house, then when you step across the threshold, I shoot you dead, then claim you were breaking in.
In your view, I get to decide if a crime is being committed by you. In fact, you claim I can't even be arrested.
See any problems with that?
In criminal law, the judge decides matters of law. The jury decides matters of fact.
In this case, the shooter killed someone. That constitutes the crime of 'murder' or 'homicide', if done intentionally, or manslaughter (if the intent was not to kill).
Now under the new law, the shooter can claim the defense of self-defense. Like any other defense, it is the jury's right and duty to decide if the accused is guilty or not.
One part of the law does say as follows:
"(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1) of this section, but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful."
So you can indeed be arrested if the agency thinks there is probable cause you were not really defending your 'castle'.
I don't know a LOT about criminal law, but there are some real Grade-A wingnuts screaming on this thread already who clearly don't know ANYTHING (and don't care).
--R.
Scroll down to 503.055 and 503.085 http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:HffQPwvPAyQJ:docjt.jus.state.ky.us/forms/legal/2006%2520statute%2520changes.pdf+krs+503.050&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=15
Well, that's a shame for the people of Kentucky.
Either:
You don't know many Judges, or
Kentucky Judges don't understand English....
But that doesn't make any sense. Is that to say that in other cases police can arrest someone absent probable cause to believe a crime has been committed. That doesn't seem right.
Whether a person acted reasonably under a given set of facts is a jury question. The role of the jury here is not to detemine the facts because the facts are not indispute, but to detemine whether the defendant acted reasonably. This is nothing new, at least not since the days of Blackstone.
That's a good point. It also might be resolved at the scene by the police.
A person does not have a duty to retreat if the person is in a place where he or she has a right to be.
Is Judge Sheila too dense to understand that language?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.