Commonwealth v. Donahue
148 Mass. 529, 20 N.E. 171, 1889 Mass. LEXIS 314 (1889)
Rule of Law:
An individual may use reasonable force, short of wounding or employing a dangerous weapon, to defend or immediately regain possession of personal property wrongfully taken or fraudulently obtained from them.
Facts:
- Donahue purchased clothes from Mitchelman for $21.55.
- Mitchelman visited Donahue’s house by appointment to collect payment for the clothes.
- Donahue placed the clothes on a chair and $20 on a table, telling Mitchelman he could have either the money or the clothes as full payment for the disputed bill.
- Mitchelman took the $20, put it in his pocket, and immediately told Donahue he still owed him $1.55.
- Donahue then demanded his $20 back from Mitchelman.
- Mitchelman refused to return the money.
- Donahue attacked Mitchelman, threw him on the floor, and choked him.
- Mitchelman then gave Donahue a pocketbook containing $29.
Procedural Posture:
- Donahue was indicted for robbery.
- At trial, the jury found Donahue guilty of assault.
- The presiding justice stated his intent to rule that Donahue would not be justified in assaulting Mitchelman to get his own money, and instructed the jury that if they found Donahue assaulted Mitchelman, they could find him guilty even if his sole motive was to retrieve money he honestly believed to be his own.
- Donahue saved his exceptions to this instruction and ruling, and consequently declined to introduce evidence.
- The jury, following the stated instructions, found Donahue guilty.
- Donahue appealed to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, challenging the trial court's instructions.
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 an individual have the right to use reasonable force to immediately regain possession of their own money that was wrongfully taken from them, even if the action constitutes an assault?
Opinions:
Majority - Holmes, J.
Yes, an individual does have the right to use reasonable force to immediately regain possession of their own money that was wrongfully taken from them, provided the force is not excessive. The court determined that if Mitchelman took the $20 on condition of full payment but repudiated that condition immediately, he took the money wrongfully from Donahue's possession, either because Donahue did not give up possession, or it was obtained by fraud. Citing ancient and modern authorities such as Commonwealth v. Stebbins and Commonwealth v. Lynn, the court affirmed the settled principle that a person may defend or regain momentarily interrupted possession by using reasonable force, so long as it falls short of wounding or employing a dangerous weapon. This right to protect one's possession is considered an extension of the right to protect one's person. The court found that the trial judge's preliminary statement and subsequent instruction, which effectively stated that any assault to regain one's own money would warrant a guilty verdict, was erroneous because it did not account for the right to use reasonable force. While excessive force would justify a finding of guilt, whether force was excessive is a question of fact for the jury, and the judge could not rule on it as a matter of law.
Analysis:
This case is significant for clarifying the scope of self-help in property disputes, establishing that an owner has a legal right to use reasonable force to regain immediate possession of property wrongfully taken or fraudulently obtained. It distinguishes such actions from robbery or unjustified assault, emphasizing that the legality of the force used hinges on its 'reasonableness' rather than the mere act of assault. The ruling serves to guide juries in assessing the factual question of excessive force in cases where property defense is claimed, thereby impacting how criminal charges for assault are evaluated when the underlying motive is to reclaim one's own property under specific circumstances of immediate, wrongful dispossession.
