Self Defense Laws: An Introduction
As with many other states, Maryland recognizes the right of individuals to defend themselves when facing unlawful action from others. For example, if someone tries to physically attack you, you have the right to use force to defend yourself. While laws covering this concept may sound fairly straightforward, this is a complex area of the law that encompasses a number of complicated rules and nuances. A full understanding of self-defense laws in Maryland can be difficult for the average person, and this is why criminal defense lawyers are often able to do so much for their clients.
Although many people have heard of the term "Stand Your Ground," the law varies greatly from state to state on whether or not this applies. Some states have "Castle laws , " which essentially allow people to stand their grounds inside their homes and use potentially lethal force on those who might threaten them with violence. In Maryland, however, the standards for when you can use lethal force are far more strict.
The primary statute dealing with self-defense laws is Maryland Criminal Law Code Annotated Section 3-205. This law states that use of lethal force in a defensive situation is justifiable if the person defending themselves believes it is necessary and immediate and it is reasonable for them to believe that such force is used against:
Here we use the term "immediate," as an immediate threat may seem like a subjective term. What is immediate to one person might not seem so immediate to someone else. It is therefore very important to understand exactly what is meant by this term and why it is crucial to the validity of your case.
Common Law Duty to Retreat in Maryland vs. "Stand Your Ground" Rules
The common law "stand your ground" rule allows people to use force, including deadly physical force, in self-defense without retreating if their actions are required to protect themselves from the imminent use of unlawful force by another person. Maryland, unlike some other states, has adhered to this common law tradition. In Morgan v. State, the Maryland Court of Appeals recently reaffirmed this tradition and explicitly rejected a proposed justification for adopting a statutory alternative that would require individuals to retreat outside of their homes or businesses, absent certain circumstances.
The proposed change in Maryland law was considered when the American Legislative Exchange Council ("ALEC") tried to model self-defense legislation after Florida’s controversial "Stand Your Ground" law in May 2012. ALEC, a private legislative committee which shares special interests’ model bills with national legislatures, works through various task forces. One is the Criminal Justice & Homeland Security Task Force. The Task Force’s suggested "Stand Your Ground" model bill stated:
"A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where that person has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if that person reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."
Maryland’s criminal law makes it a felony for any person to use physical force against another to commit a crime. In the landmark case of Morgan v. State, the Court of Appeals of Maryland reviewed the evolution of Maryland’s longstanding "stand your ground" law. For decades, the law of self-defense in Maryland was generally that "a man threatened with an assault may with general impunity stand his ground and kill his assailant." But the law also recognized a "duty to retreat" if "it [could] be done in complete safety," even where an individual has the right to be, unless the individual is "trapped or collared."
Since the Morgan case, Maryland law, mirrors "stand your ground" laws in other states except that it contains a limited exception. Separately, Maryland’s defense of dwelling rule allows individuals to use deadly force when someone enters their home with the intent to commit a crime.
When Self Defense Is Justified in the State of Maryland
In Maryland, self-defense claims may be made in defense to both negative acts of the state and to positive attacks by fellow citizens. However, there are certain circumstances under which a citizen may be justified in employing deadly physical force when defending themselves or others. A person may lawfully use deadly physical force on another when the first person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to protect himself, a third person against serious physical injury or death. It must be noted, that in Maryland you have a duty to retreat before you use force against an alleged attacker unless you are at home or at work. This retreat rule was adopted by the Maryland Court of Appeals in the case of Ross v. State, 124 Md App.413, 732 A.2d 868 (1999). In determining whether self-defense was legally justified in any situation, the jury will be asked to determine whether the defendant’s belief that he was in danger was objectively reasonable. The reasonable person standard is set out in the case of Smith v. State, 32 Md. App. 344, 362 A2d 653 (1976). Simply unreasonable beliefs do not justify the use of deadly force. The Maryland Criminal Pattern Jury Instructions tell jurors that: "Before a person is justified in using deadly force to defend himself from another person he must believe that he faces an imminent threat of death or serious physical injury. The threat must be real or actual, and not merely what a reasonable or prudent person would fear. The threat may not be simply fear of minor or non-life-threatening harm, nor should it be tempered by the fact that the defendant withholds lethal or deadly force in his possession. This belief must be objectively reasonable or credible in the eyes of other people. It is not enough merely to say that you ‘felt’ that your life was seriously threatened. You must believe that you have been or will be attacked. You must in fact be wronged, or be reasonably perceived to have been wronged." There is no allotment of force that may be used in a given situation, each situation must be considered on its own merits. It is a jury question as to whether the force was necessary in order to protect oneself from serious physical harm.
When Force, Even Deadly Force, May Be Considered Self Defense
In Maryland, the use of deadly force in self-defense is allowed in two very limited situations: (1) where the reasonable and proportionate use of force against a person was not sufficient to prevent a violent injury to the person using force or to a third person; and (2) where the circumstances are such as to justify the use of deadly force in self-defense. Maryland Courts have clarified the justification of the use of deadly force in situations such as to prevent death or serious physical injury, but the behavior leading to the use of deadly force must place the party using such force by imminent threat of death or serious physical injury. If the use of deadly force is not justified, then such use becomes a crime and there is significant criminal sanction for the use of said force. The criminal sanction for the use of said force ranges from a misdemeanor assault charge to felony first degree murder. It is important to note that the use of deadly force can never be used in response to the nondeadly force of another. Nondeadly Force includes: minor hitting or punching, if the force does not put the person by or reasonably near imminent danger of serious physical injury or death. Thus, a person cannot meet the the force of being hit with a fist with a firearm or the like. Often, there are court proceedings following the alleged use of said force. In such proceedings there is a high level of expert involvement in the area of criminal law. If you have been charged with a crime, it is vitally important you seek a criminal defense attorney with a clear understanding of these complex laws.
Legal Ramifications of Claiming Self Defense as a Defense to Criminal Charges
The application of self-defense claims in a court of law is dependent upon the circumstances that gave rise to the alleged act of self-defense. The "reasonable person" standard contained in the Maryland Judicial Conference Criminal Pattern Jury Instructions, Identifying the Issue, states: "[T]he defendant did [thing done resulting in charge against defendant] in order to defend against the use of force by [name of victim on trial] to [briefly describe the force defendant claims victim was intending to use]. The people of Maryland require that a person claiming self-defense show not only that he or she acted in self-defense, but also that he or she had a good faith belief that the act was necessary to defend the person . . . against a present, imminent, or immediate unlawful force, and that the force used by the person claiming self-defense was reasonable under the circumstances."
For example, if a person pushes someone, if there is no immediate physical threat, even a response to a push may be over-reactive. To claim that a shove was an imminent threat when there was no weapon and no threat of a weapon, would be hard to prove in court. However, if the alcohol was added to the mix, things may be different.
In many instances, people who are charged with assault actually believe they are acting in self-defense when they lash out against their alleged aggressors . However, the fact that a person subjectively believes that he needs to defend himself from attack does not necessarily exonerate him from criminal liability.
"The defendant’s belief must be held against an objective standard." State v. Smith, 316 Md. 180, 183, 557 A.2d 227, 229 (1989); State v. Mitchell, 29 Md.App. 1, 8, 349 A.2d 443, 447 (1975). Thus, even if a person truly and subjectively believes that he is threatened with imminent death, and even if that belief is reasonable, he may close his eyes and charge his adversary with the hope that the latter will await his pleasure. By doing so, that person is more than a combatant; he is a willing combatant fighting for the joy of battle. In that case, the act of aggression is not self-defense, and self-defense is never a defense to combativeness."
Without going further, the point is that a claim of self-defense can change the nature of criminal action taken against a person. It is very important that if you are charged with a violent crime that you immediately contact an experienced criminal defense attorney. Even if you were acting in self-defense, assault charges will remain. How those charges are treated can change if they fall under the self-defense umbrella.
Recent Rulings Regarding Self Defense
Several cases from Maryland courts have illustrated the application of self-defense laws in various circumstances. In Self v. State, 176 Md. App. 636 (2007), for example, the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland considered an aggravated assault charge involving a game of dice that resulted in a dispute. The case was an interesting one for several reasons, not the least of which is that its holding revolved around the question of whether the affirmative defense of self-defense regarding deadly force was properly presented to the jury. Another case arising in the context of a game of chance was Izquierdo v. State, 180 Md. App. 689 (2008), but involved a non-lethal weapon – a knife.
Izquierdo involved an altercation between the defendant and the victim over money won in a dice game. The defendant, who was a resident of the victim’s housing project, was invited by the victim to come to his apartment to collect on a debt. A physical confrontation ensued, during which the victim was bitten on his hand. The trial court denied the defendant a self-defense instruction, denying the defendant’s request on the basis that, as a matter of law, the defendant’s use of force "was presumptively unlawful" because use of a dangerous weapon is never reasonable unless necessary to protect against imminent peril to life or serious injury. Izquierdo at 704, citing State v. Smith, 327 Md. 428, 436 (1992).
Ultimately, the appellate court noted that the trial court erred in denying the self-defense instruction, and that the question of whether a reasonable belief as to imminent danger would arise was "not something that the court could have determined on its own as a matter of law" – instead, that was a question for the jury. The question before the jury had to be whether a reasonable person would believe that life or serious injury was about to occur, for which use of nonfatal physical force would have been necessary.
Seeking Legal Help
Because self-defense cases in Maryland can be highly complex, the need to speak to an attorney about your circumstances will be vital. An experienced Maryland criminal attorney will offer invaluable guidance as you prepare for a legal battle. An attorney will review the details of your case to determine if a claim for self-defense should be presented . He or she will also advise you about the legality of your efforts to defend yourself or a loved one, or how self-defense was or was not applicable in the event you were injured by another. The lawyer you choose should have specific experience with self-defense cases in Maryland and throughout the Baltimore-Washington region and a long history of successfully representing clients in similar situations.