Commonwealth v. Fisher
420 A.2d 427, 1980 Pa. LEXIS 813, 491 Pa. 231 (1980)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A claim of self-defense is not defeated by evidence that a defendant used more force than was strictly necessary to repel an attacker, so long as the defendant was in the heat of a life-threatening conflict and reasonably believed the amount of force used was necessary for self-preservation.
Facts:
- Donald R. (Skip) Fisher and Joanne Fisher divorced, after which Joanne began a relationship with Danny McLaughlin.
- In the months prior to the incident, Fisher made several threats to kill McLaughlin.
- On the evening of November 2, 1978, McLaughlin, who was intoxicated and angry, initiated a series of accusatory telephone calls to Fisher.
- Following the calls, Fisher and McLaughlin arranged to meet on a bridge shortly after midnight.
- Fisher arrived at the bridge unarmed, while McLaughlin arrived armed with a .38 magnum pistol.
- Upon meeting, McLaughlin approached Fisher and shot him in the right leg from a distance of four to six feet, causing Fisher to fall to the ground.
- A struggle ensued, during which Fisher gained control of McLaughlin's gun.
- Fisher then struck McLaughlin about the head with the butt of the pistol fourteen times, inflicting fatal skull fractures.
Procedural Posture:
- Donald R. Fisher was tried before a jury in the Court of Common Pleas of York County.
- The jury convicted Fisher of voluntary manslaughter.
- Fisher filed post-verdict motions challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, which the trial court denied.
- The trial court sentenced Fisher to two to four years imprisonment.
- Fisher then filed a direct appeal to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
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's use of repeated, fatal blows against an aggressor constitute excessive force that negates a claim of self-defense, when the defendant has already been shot and is engaged in a continuous struggle for his life over a firearm?
Opinions:
Majority - Eagen, Chief Justice
No. A defendant's use of force is not excessive when used in the heat of a conflict where the defendant reasonably believes he is fighting for his life, even if, in retrospect, fewer blows might have been sufficient to neutralize the threat. The Commonwealth has the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant was not acting in self-defense. To do so, it must prove one of three things: (1) the defendant did not reasonably believe deadly force was necessary or used excessive force; (2) the defendant provoked the attack; or (3) the defendant could have retreated in complete safety. Here, the evidence clearly shows McLaughlin was the provocateur and Fisher could not retreat after being shot in the leg. The central question is whether Fisher used excessive force. Given that Fisher had been shot, was stunned, and was engaged in a continuous life-or-death struggle for control of the gun, his belief that he needed to continue striking McLaughlin to save his own life was reasonable. The Commonwealth presented no evidence to establish at what point the threat from McLaughlin was neutralized, as the pathologist could not determine which of the fourteen blows rendered McLaughlin helpless. Therefore, the Commonwealth failed to meet its burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Fisher's belief regarding the necessary amount of force was unreasonable.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high burden on the prosecution to disprove a claim of self-defense, particularly on the element of excessive force. The court's application of the 'heat of conflict' doctrine provides significant leeway to a defendant who has been subjected to deadly force. The ruling establishes that without specific evidence showing the precise moment a threat was neutralized and that the defendant knowingly continued to apply deadly force thereafter, it is difficult for the prosecution to prove that the force used was excessive. This case emphasizes a subjective-objective standard, focusing on the reasonableness of the defendant's belief during the chaotic event, rather than what might seem appropriate in hindsight.
