State v. Harden, 223 W. Va. 796 (2009)
The defendant shot and killed her husband after a night of “domestic terror.” She claimed that she acted in self-defense; however, the State argued that she unreasonably used deadly force and that she could have retreated from the danger. She was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole. On appeal, the Court agreed that the evidence supported her claim of self-defense, and that she had a right to a self-defense jury instruction. The Court explained that to claim self-defense, the defendant must have a “subjectively reasonable” belief they were at “imminent risk of bodily injury or death” (i.e., the defendant believed their actions were necessary to prevent such death or severe injury). In addition, defendant’s belief must be “objectively reasonable,” (i.e., another similarly situated person could have formed the same belief). The Court stated that evidence of abuse could have been used as a mitigating factor for the charged offense, even if she could not claim self-defense. The Court also clarified that there is no duty to retreat (leave the home) if attacked by a co-occupant of a home. After evaluating the extensive evidence that the defendant presented of the abuse that occurred prior to the killing of her husband; that he had just sexually assaulted her and threatened to kill her and their children, the Court concluded that she did have a reasonable basis to believe that she was at risk of death or serious bodily injury, and that the danger was imminent. Her conviction and sentence were vacated, and she was acquitted.
Topics
Geographical location
Keywords
Year
- 2009
External URL
Court
Type
Jurisdiction