Commonwealth v. Mouzon
2012 Pa. LEXIS 1889, 617 Pa. 527, 53 A.3d 738 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant cannot assert a claim of self-defense if they are not free from fault in provoking or continuing the difficulty that resulted in the slaying. Furthermore, the use of deadly force is not justified when the defendant can safely retreat or when the victim no longer poses a threat of death or serious bodily injury.
Facts:
- Appellee Mouzon arrived at the Flamingo Bar before weapon screening began and was carrying a concealed, loaded handgun.
- Shortly after midnight, Mouzon approached two women and, after they rebuffed him, followed them through the bar, calling them names and threatening that he would 'kill those bitches.'
- As the women and their friends tried to leave, Mouzon continued to follow and harass them.
- A friend of the women, Dewhitt Smith, had a heated exchange with Mouzon, during which Mouzon reached for something in his waistband.
- Immediately thereafter, another friend, Andre King, approached Mouzon and punched him several times.
- Mouzon then pulled the handgun from his waistband.
- Upon seeing the weapon, King, who was unarmed, backed away with his hands raised in the air.
- From a distance of three to four feet, Mouzon fired twice, hitting King in the head and a bystander, Darlene Redding, in the thigh. King died from his wound fifteen days later.
Procedural Posture:
- Mouzon was charged with murder, aggravated assault, and related offenses in a Pennsylvania trial court.
- At trial, the court initially denied Mouzon's request for a self-defense jury instruction and his motion to admit evidence of the victim's prior robbery conviction.
- After the prosecutor commented during closing arguments that no self-defense instruction would be given, the trial court reversed its ruling and instructed the jury on self-defense, but did not admit the victim's prior conviction.
- The jury convicted Mouzon of first-degree murder and other charges, and he was sentenced to life imprisonment.
- Mouzon, as appellant, appealed to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Superior Court held that the trial court erred in excluding evidence of the victim's prior conviction because self-defense was a valid issue for the jury, and it vacated the sentence and remanded for a new trial.
- The Commonwealth, as appellant, sought and was granted an appeal to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, the state's highest 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:
Is a defendant entitled to assert a claim of self-defense, thereby making the victim's prior conviction potentially admissible as propensity evidence, when the defendant provoked the underlying difficulty and used deadly force against the victim after the victim had retreated?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Castille
No. A defendant who provoked the underlying difficulty and used deadly force after the victim retreated is not, as a matter of law, entitled to assert a claim of self-defense. The court reasoned that a self-defense claim has three essential elements: (1) a reasonable belief of imminent danger, (2) being free from fault in provoking the conflict, and (3) an inability to retreat safely. Here, Mouzon failed on at least two elements. First, he was not free from fault, as his persistent harassment and death threats against the women provoked the entire fatal encounter. Second, he could not have reasonably believed deadly force was necessary at the moment he fired, because the uncontradicted evidence showed the victim, King, was unarmed and retreating with his hands up. Because self-defense was not properly at issue, the victim's prior criminal record, which would only be relevant to show the victim was the aggressor, was inadmissible.
Concurring - Justice Todd
No. The author joins the majority's conclusion that Mouzon was not entitled to a self-defense claim because he provoked the incident and the victim was retreating when shot. However, the author writes separately to criticize the majority's extensive discussion questioning the long-standing precedent that places the burden on the Commonwealth to disprove self-defense. The author argues this discussion is dicta, as the issue was not raised by the parties or granted for appeal. Furthermore, the concurrence expresses concern over the majority's suggestion that a defendant may need to testify to establish the subjective element of self-defense, noting this implicates the constitutional right against self-incrimination.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces that the elements of self-defense, particularly being 'free from fault,' are stringent legal prerequisites that a court can decide as a matter of law. The ruling clarifies that a defendant's entire course of conduct, not just the final moments of a confrontation, is relevant to determining if they were the initial provocateur. By finding self-defense unavailable despite the victim throwing the first punch, the court signals that instigating a conflict through threats and harassment can forfeit one's right to claim justification. This precedent limits the ability of defendants who create dangerous situations to later claim self-defense when the situation escalates.
