Murder case to test state’s shoot first law (Mother of four was defending herself)

The News Enterprise ^ | 8 Apr 09 | Bob White

[Jrabbit]

hmmm....killing the babydaddy was her version of birth control, maybe?

[caver]

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.

[4woodenboats]

The essence of the affirmative defense is: "Yes, I committed murder by killing that man, but I was justified in doing so because..."

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.

[fella]

Geeeeee ....................... I wonder if there's any chance that the cops and prosecutors have any friendly relations with the “mayor of a West Virginia town and criminal defense attorney by trade” whose son they claim is a victim. Those of us who have lived in small towns know that there is no way that there could be any crony-ism down at the local courthouse, ‘Boss Hogg” wouldn't allow that.

[mvpel]

In New Hampshire, killing someone in self-defense meets all the elements of the crime of Second Degree Murder, by definition:

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.

[1010RD]

Excellent posts, analysis and explanation. Thanks.

[4woodenboats]

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.

[dsc]

“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.

[mvpel]

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.