Posted on 04/08/2009 5:53:32 AM PDT by SLB
Defense attorneys say mother of four was defending herself
ELIZABETHTOWN – Putting a 2006 law that attorneys say lacks precedence and guidance to the test didn’t take long in the prosecution of a married mother of four who is charged with killing her estranged boyfriend at her home last year.
During Tuesday’s arraignment of Angie Ricketts, the 32-year-old former girlfriend of Eric West, whom she is accused of shooting Sept. 29 at her Howevalley home, defense attorneys said Ricketts defended herself by firing two pistol rounds to West’s face and chest during what they say was an assault against her.
It took six months before a grand jury reviewed the case Kentucky State Police detective Matt Johnson compiled against Ricketts.
A grand jury last month returned an indictment on a murder charge against her and Ricketts was jailed for the first time since West’s death.
Prosecutors say they’re confident Ricketts committed murder, but defense attorneys speak of equal confidence that she did not.
“There was a crime committed,” attorney Shane Young said to Hardin Circuit Court Judge Ken Howard during the arraignment. “But the crime was against her. There were visible injuries … You have a right to defend yourself.”
Lead investigator Johnson said a single small bruise was found on Ricketts’ arm the night of West’s killing. He said that bruise was not inflicted by West.
In defending Ricketts’ firing the weapon and in support of his request for an unsecured bond for his client, Young referenced the relatively new state law adopted in 2006 since dubbed the “shoot first law.” The law allows use of deadly force when threatened by a burglar or assailant.
Tuesday’s mention of the law was of no surprise to those trying to punish Ricketts.
The same day Ricketts killed West, Kentucky State Police Post 4 spokesman Steve Pavey alluded to the “shoot first” law when explaining to reporters why no arrests were made.
“With the new law that went into effect a couple years ago, we have to prove this was anything other than justified,” Pavey said. “The burden of proof is on the state.”
The state, however, says it’s confident the shoot first law doesn’t protect Ricketts from prosecution.
“I feel strongly about the case,” Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorney Jeff England told Howard. “I don’t believe the intruder law applies. …”
During Ricketts’ arraignment, England argued against any bond reduction. Since her arrest, Ricketts has been held at the Hardin County Detention Center in lieu of $250,000 bond – less than any others currently being held in Hardin County on murder charges.
“Defense attorneys forget about the seriousness of the crime,” England said. “It’s amazing to me. …”
While Young said he would also accept a $50,000 bond at 10 percent, Howard said the nature of the charge against Ricketts must be weighed.
Howard set bond at $100,000 cash.
Young said he will soon ask for an immunity hearing for Ricketts. He argued that she should not be prosecuted because of the law allowing use of deadly force when acting in self-defense.
In addition, Young filed motions for dismissal and speedy trial Tuesday in open court.
The earliest available trial date Howard could accommodate was Nov. 4, he said.
England is scheduled to file a response to Young’s motion to dismiss April 24 and Howard said judgment on that motion could be made by May 1.
England noted the lack of case history involving the law in question. He said that lack of case history relating to fatal self defense since the law was adopted offers little guidance for courts to follow.
Young said Georgia and Colorado have some precedents on the books.
Away from the courtroom after the hearing, families on both sides of the case openly grieved and vented their frustrations.
Ricketts’ husband, Eric, said he stands behind his wife, even though, he said, he’d not been aware of West fathering three of Ricketts’ four children until the investigation surrounding the shooting started.
The day of West’s shooting, the husband said he knew West had fathered one child with Angie Ricketts after what he thought was a brief affair six years ago. He attributed what he described as constant phone calls and harassment by West to the affair which he thought was long over.
“I never knew,” Eric Ricketts said of more than one of his children having been fathered by West. But said he loves all the children just the same without regard to the current situation.
Ricketts said the children’s maternal grandmother is helping with the four children since their mother is in jail awaiting trial.
Ricketts’ step-father, Charles Lowrance, described the investigation and prosecution as a “witch hunt” and placed blame for the shooting and mess leftover on West.
“(West’s family) should’ve kept their son on a leash,” Lowrance said. “They knew he was a nut. I always knew he was a nut.”
Lowrance said West was violent the day Ricketts shot him and said investigators only heard one side of the story.
“They never even talked to us,” Lowrance said. Lowrance joined Eric Ricketts at the Ricketts’ Yates Chapel Road home after the shooting occurred. He said he found it odd, even suspicious that no detectives interviewed him or other Ricketts’ family members.
He also said it doesn’t seem the new law is being applied to Ricketts’ case.
“Police can empty a clip on a person and it’s OK, but if we try to protect ourselves, we get put in jail,” Lowrance said.
Eric Ricketts’ mother noted how sad it is that the mother of four children is in jail.
While one family worried about the temporary loss of a mother, another family mourned the permanent loss of a brother and son.
West’s father, Charles Stanford West, mayor of a West Virginia town and criminal defense attorney by trade, said Kentucky’s “shoot first law” is simply “a license to kill” and said results of Tuesday’s arraignment were disappointing.
“It seriously depreciates the seriousness of the crime,” West said of the reduced bond for Ricketts. “I have people in jail on $100,000 bonds for having three Xanaxs.”
hmmm....killing the babydaddy was her version of birth control, maybe?
Geez, why didn’t the woman just divorce the husband so that she could be with the boyfriend? I imagine the husband payed the bills while she had fun with the boyfriend. Who knows though, maybe they had an agreement.
I'm neither a lawyer or play one on TV, but I'm gonna call BS on that.
Defending oneself from an attacker is NOT murder.
630:1-b Second Degree Murder. –
I. A person is guilty of murder in the second degree if:
(a) He knowingly causes the death of another; ...
II. Murder in the second degree shall be punishable by imprisonment for life or for such term as the court may order.
The elements are: "causing the death of another" and "knowingly." You don't "unknowingly" kill someone who's attacking you.
The State of New Hampshire, like many other states, can thus charge you with Second Degree Murder if you kill someone in self-defense, even if it's a crystal clear-cut open-and-shut justified self-defense, and force you to mount an affirmative defense under RSA 627:4.
Most DAs won't waste the effort filing charges in clear-cut cases, but perhaps the prosecutor is running for re-election that year, or is a media hound, or the case isn't quite so clear-cut from a certain warped perspective, or you're sleeping with his ex-wife, or something along those lines. Lacrosse, anyone?
This principle is spelled out in 627:1 - "627:1 General Rule. – Conduct which is justifiable under this chapter constitutes a defense to any offense. The fact that such conduct is justifiable shall constitute a complete defense to any civil action based on such conduct. "
It's a defense to any offense. Not an elimination of the offense itself.
Excellent posts, analysis and explanation. Thanks.
Thanks for posting that. It’s hard to believe my eyes, but it is what it is, which is a crock of dung seemingly custom tailored for the abuse of power.
“Not in the case of affirmative defenses. In most states if you are trying to use “justification” as an affirmative defense against a murder or assault charge, the burden of proof is on you to show you were justified in committing what would otherwise be a crime. “
Yes, and I have always considered that to be an unconscionable perversion of the state’s power.
Yep, and that’s why so many states have been pushing the so-called “Castle Doctrine” or “Stand Your Ground” laws, which restore the presumption of innocence to someone who was defending themselves from criminal attack.
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.