Earl M. Bailey v. Commonwealth of Virginia
200 Va. 92 (1958)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant who kills an assailant in self-defense is entitled to a full acquittal, regardless of whether the homicide is deemed justifiable or excusable. A defendant is not considered to be at fault in provoking an attack, and thus does not lose the right to claim justifiable self-defense, merely for meeting with the assailant's estranged wife under non-illicit circumstances.
Facts:
- Charles Jackson Pittman and his wife, Alice Rue, were separated and in the process of divorcing.
- During the separation, Earl M. Bailey began a relationship with Mrs. Pittman (Alice Rue), and they planned to marry after her divorce was final.
- Pittman was jealous of the relationship and on several occasions threatened to kill Bailey.
- On January 24, 1957, Mrs. Pittman arranged to meet Bailey at her mother's apartment, ostensibly to give him some pictures for her son.
- Bailey, aware of Pittman's threats, brought a pistol with him for protection.
- While Bailey and Mrs. Pittman were inside the apartment, Pittman knocked and then crashed through the locked and bolted front door.
- Pittman rushed into the bedroom where Bailey was, carrying what Bailey and Mrs. Pittman believed to be a gun under his jacket.
- Bailey warned Pittman he was armed and fired a warning shot, but Pittman continued to advance and raised a heavy lug wrench over his head to strike Bailey, at which point Bailey fired the fatal shot.
Procedural Posture:
- Earl M. Bailey was indicted in a Virginia trial court for the murder of Charles Jackson Pittman.
- Bailey pleaded not guilty and waived a jury trial, opting for a bench trial.
- The trial court found Bailey guilty of the lesser included offense of voluntary manslaughter.
- The court sentenced Bailey to four years in the penitentiary but suspended the sentence after ninety days in jail.
- Bailey, as the appellant, appealed the judgment of conviction to the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.
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 forfeit the right to a justifiable self-defense claim by being 'partly at fault' for provoking a fatal confrontation, merely by meeting clandestinely with the deceased's estranged wife?
Opinions:
Majority - Eggleston, J.
No, a defendant does not forfeit the right to a justifiable self-defense claim under these circumstances. A finding of valid self-defense, whether justifiable or excusable, requires an acquittal. The court reasoned that there are two types of self-defense homicide: justifiable and excusable. Justifiable homicide occurs when the defendant is without fault in provoking the conflict and kills under a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm. The court found Bailey was without fault, as meeting Mrs. Pittman at her mother's apartment was not improper conduct or legal provocation, so he had the right to stand his ground. Alternatively, excusable homicide occurs when the defendant is partly at fault but retreats as far as possible before killing out of necessity. The court held that even if Bailey were deemed partly at fault, he was entitled to an acquittal on the basis of excusable self-defense because he was cornered, had no means of escape, warned his attacker, and only fired the fatal shot when Pittman, armed with a deadly weapon, was about to strike him.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the meaning of 'fault' in the context of self-defense, establishing that conduct that might provoke jealousy, such as meeting an estranged spouse, does not necessarily constitute legal provocation sufficient to negate a claim of justifiable self-defense. It reinforces the legal principle that a successful self-defense claim is a complete defense to homicide, mandating an acquittal, not merely a reduction of the charge to manslaughter. The case also provides a clear application of the distinction between justifiable self-defense (no duty to retreat for a non-aggressor) and excusable self-defense (requiring retreat if partly at fault), solidifying the framework for analyzing such claims.
Unlock the full brief for Earl M. Bailey v. Commonwealth of Virginia