Allen v. State
871 P.2d 79 (1994)
Rule of Law:
A defendant is not entitled to a claim of self-defense if they pursue an attacker who has withdrawn from a conflict, or if they retreat from a renewed confrontation solely to obtain a tactical advantage, such as retrieving a deadly weapon, when the possibility of escape exists.
Facts:
- Wanda Jean Allen and Gloria Leathers were involved in a homosexual relationship that Leathers sought to terminate.
- Following a dispute, Leathers, accompanied by police, went to the residence she shared with Allen to retrieve her belongings.
- Allen alleged that during this initial encounter, Leathers struck her in the face with a small, hand-held garden rake.
- Leathers then left the residence in a car with her mother and drove to a nearby police station, indicating a desire to withdraw from the conflict.
- Allen followed Leathers in a separate car to the police station.
- Outside the station, Allen claimed Leathers approached her again while holding the garden rake.
- Allen then retreated to her own vehicle, opened the passenger door, and retrieved a pistol from the glove compartment.
- Allen shot Leathers once in the abdomen, causing a wound from which Leathers died four days later.
Procedural Posture:
- Wanda Jean Allen was tried by a jury in the District Court of Oklahoma County for Murder in the First Degree and Possession of a Firearm After Former Conviction of a Felony.
- The jury convicted Allen on both counts.
- During the sentencing phase for the murder conviction, the jury found the existence of two aggravating circumstances and recommended a sentence of death.
- The trial court sentenced Allen to death for the murder and to ten years imprisonment for the firearm charge.
- Allen appealed the judgment and sentence to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, the state's highest court for criminal matters.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a defendant who pursues a withdrawn attacker to a new location and then, when confronted again, retreats to her vehicle to retrieve a deadly weapon instead of escaping, have a valid claim of self-defense?
Opinions:
Majority - Lumpkin, P.J.
No. A defendant is not entitled to jury instructions on self-defense when their own version of events shows they became the pursuer of a withdrawn aggressor and then chose to acquire a deadly weapon instead of escaping a subsequent confrontation. Leathers clearly indicated a desire to withdraw from the initial conflict by leaving the house and driving to the police station. By following her, Allen became the pursuer and re-initiated the encounter. Even accepting Allen's claim that Leathers approached her with the garden rake at the police station, Allen lost the right of self-defense when she retreated to her vehicle. This action was not to escape but to obtain a 'tactical advantage'—the acquisition of a deadly weapon. The possibility of escape is a recognized factor in determining whether deadly force was necessary. Because Allen was not entitled to a self-defense instruction, the trial court's refusal to admit corroborating evidence for that defense was not error.
Dissenting - Lane, J.
Yes. The defendant's theory of self-defense should have been properly submitted to the jury. The trial judge correctly determined that Allen presented sufficient evidence to raise the defense and instruct the jury on it. The majority improperly acts as a 'trier of fact' by substituting its own judgment and disbelieving Allen's testimony, which is the jury's role. The determinative issue is that once the defense was raised, the trial court committed reversible error by failing to instruct the jury that the State bore the burden of disproving self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. This error requires a new trial.
Analysis:
This decision significantly refines Oklahoma's self-defense doctrine by limiting the 'stand your ground' principle. The court establishes that the 'possibility of escape' is a critical factor in assessing the necessity of deadly force. By distinguishing between retreating to escape and withdrawing to gain a 'tactical advantage,' the ruling narrows the circumstances under which a defendant can claim self-defense after re-engaging an adversary. This creates a higher bar for defendants who had an opportunity to disengage but instead chose to escalate the conflict with a weapon, impacting both trial strategy and jury instructions in future self-defense cases.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Allen v. State (1994)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"