Commonwealth v. Emmons
43 A.2d 568, 157 Pa.Super. 495 (1945)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The use of force likely to cause death or great bodily harm is not justified to prevent the commission of a felony against personal property unless the felony is atrocious in nature or is committed by force or surprise.
Facts:
- Mildred E. Emmons purchased a Chevrolet Sedan automobile under a bailment lease.
- Emmons fell into default on the lease payments by two monthly installments, totaling $115.66.
- The bailment lease granted the bailor the right to repossess the vehicle upon default.
- On September 21, 1943, a representative of the finance company that held the lease, along with an employee named Edward Gray, went to repossess the car.
- The car was parked on a cul-de-sac street next to Emmons's apartment building.
- The men pushed the car onto the main street to check its serial numbers.
- Believing her car was being stolen, Emmons fired a .22 rifle from her second-floor apartment.
- One of the shots struck Edward Gray, severely shattering the femur bone in his left leg.
Procedural Posture:
- Mildred E. Emmons was indicted in a trial court on three counts: assault and battery with intent to murder, aggravated assault and battery, and simple assault and battery.
- Following a trial, a jury found Emmons guilty of aggravated assault and battery.
- Emmons filed a motion for a new trial, which the trial court overruled.
- The trial court imposed a sentence upon Emmons.
- Emmons, as the appellant, appealed the judgment and sentence to the intermediate appellate court.
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 force likely to cause grievous bodily harm to prevent the larceny of their personal property when they are not in personal danger and the felony is not being committed by force?
Opinions:
Majority - Arnold, J.
No. A person is not justified in using deadly force or inflicting grievous bodily harm simply to prevent a larceny of personal property. The court reasoned that the right to use deadly force in defense of property is limited to preventing felonies that are either atrocious or committed with force or surprise, such as murder, arson, burglary, or rape. The law does not justify such extreme force for non-violent property crimes where there is no threat to the security of a person or their home. The court emphasized that the preservation of human life and limb is of greater importance to society than the protection of property, and since Emmons was not defending her person or her home from a forcible intruder, the shooting was not legally justified.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of the defense of property doctrine under common law, establishing that the right to use deadly force is narrowly circumscribed. It aligns Pennsylvania law with the majority view that such force is reserved for preventing violent, atrocious felonies that threaten personal safety or the sanctity of the home, not for protecting personal property from non-violent theft. The ruling creates a clear distinction between felonies, limiting the justification for deadly force and prioritizing human life over property. This precedent significantly restricts the circumstances under which a person can claim defense of property to justify inflicting serious bodily harm or death.
