Brown Ex Rel. Brown v. Martinez
361 P.2d 152, 68 N.M. 271 (1961)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A property owner is not privileged to use force calculated to cause death or serious bodily injury, such as firing a gun, in defense of property against a mere trespass or a misdemeanor. The use of such force is unreasonable as a matter of law.
Facts:
- On September 18, 1954, a 15-year-old boy and his friends went to the appellee's property to steal watermelons.
- The following night, the 15-year-old boy returned with several other boys to steal more watermelons from the appellee's farm.
- While two boys entered the melon patch, the 15-year-old boy stood near the fence in the highway right-of-way.
- The appellee heard the boys, emerged from his house with a rifle, and yelled for them to get out.
- The appellee saw two of the boys running and fired the rifle in what he claimed was a different direction, intending only to scare them.
- The bullet from the rifle struck the 15-year-old boy in the back of his left leg, breaking the bones.
Procedural Posture:
- The father of the injured 15-year-old boy, on his own behalf and as next friend to his son (appellants), sued the property owner (appellee) in a New Mexico trial court for damages.
- After a bench trial, the trial court found that the appellee had acted reasonably and had not used unnecessary force to eject the trespassers.
- The trial court entered a judgment dismissing the appellants' claim.
- The appellants appealed the trial court's judgment to the Supreme Court of New Mexico.
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 property owner who fires a gun to scare away individuals committing a misdemeanor trespass and theft become liable for the resulting injuries, even if the owner did not intend to strike anyone?
Opinions:
Majority - Moise, Justice
Yes, a property owner is liable for injuries resulting from the use of a firearm to prevent a misdemeanor trespass. The law places a higher value on human safety than on property rights, and there is no privilege to use force calculated to cause death or serious bodily injury where only property is threatened. The boys' actions of trespassing and stealing watermelons constituted a misdemeanor, not a felony, and therefore did not justify the use of a firearm. The court determined that the use of a gun in such circumstances is unreasonable as a matter of law, not a question of fact for a jury. Furthermore, the appellee's lack of specific intent to hit the appellant is irrelevant; under the doctrine of transferred intent, the intent to commit an assault against one person makes the actor liable for any resulting harmful contact to another person, even if that person's presence was unknown.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the legal principle that human life is valued more highly than property. It establishes a clear, bright-line rule in New Mexico that using a firearm against a misdemeanant trespasser is unreasonable per se, removing the question of reasonableness from the jury's factual determination in such cases. The ruling limits a property owner's right to use force in defense of property, clarifying that potentially deadly force is only justifiable in the face of a felony or a threat to personal safety or the habitation. This precedent significantly impacts future cases by restricting the defense of 'reasonable force' when a deadly weapon is used to stop a minor property crime.
Unlock the full brief for Brown Ex Rel. Brown v. Martinez