Maichle v. Jonovic
69 Wis. 2d 622, 1975 Wisc. LEXIS 1554, 230 N.W. 2d 789 (1975)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A person may be justified in using preemptive force in self-defense when a history of physical harassment and verbal threats from an aggressor makes an otherwise ambiguous act appear to pose a threat of imminent bodily harm. The reasonableness of this belief is judged from the perspective of a person of ordinary intelligence and prudence, or for a child, one of like age, intelligence, and experience.
Facts:
- Scott Jonovic, age eight, and Steven Maichle, age nine, were neighbors and former friends.
- For approximately four weeks, Steve and another boy, Jeff, repeatedly bullied Scott, which included name-calling, physical intimidation, and throwing stones at him.
- On November 18, 1970, while on the school bus, Steve and Jeff physically struck Scott.
- During the same bus ride, Steve and Jeff announced to other students that they were going to get off at Scott's stop to beat him up.
- The substitute bus driver stopped four houses short of Scott's home.
- Scott exited the bus, and Steve and Jeff immediately followed him off.
- After getting off the bus and seeing Steve and Jeff behind him, Scott turned and struck Steve in the mouth.
- Steve then chased Scott as he ran home, jumping on his back and trying to hit him.
Procedural Posture:
- The Maichle family (plaintiffs) sued the Jonovic family (defendants) in a Wisconsin trial court for battery.
- The case was tried before a jury, which was asked to answer a special verdict question: 'At the time in question, was the striking of Steven Maichle by Scott Jonovic with justification?'
- The jury answered the question 'Yes,' finding in favor of Scott Jonovic.
- The trial court, upon a post-verdict motion, changed the jury's answer to 'No' and entered judgment for the plaintiffs.
- Scott Jonovic (defendant/appellant) appealed the trial court's judgment to the Supreme Court of Wisconsin.
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 the defense of self-defense justify a preemptive strike when it is based on a history of past physical harassment and verbal threats, combined with an ambiguous but potentially threatening act by the aggressor?
Opinions:
Majority - Connor T. Hansen, J.
Yes, self-defense can justify a preemptive strike under these circumstances. The court should not have overturned the jury's verdict because there was credible evidence to support the finding of justification. The trial court erred by only considering the plaintiff's version of events instead of viewing the evidence most favorably to the jury's verdict, which was that the strike occurred off the bus. The jury could have reasonably concluded that the history of harassment and violence, the specific threats made minutes earlier, and the overt act of Steve and Jeff following Scott off the bus created a reasonable belief in Scott's mind that he was in imminent danger of bodily harm. The reasonableness of a child's belief is judged in relation to that of a reasonable person of like age, intelligence, and experience. Citing Keep v. Quallman, an ambiguous overt act, when coupled with prior threats, can create a reasonable basis for believing harm is imminent, thereby justifying a preemptive act of self-defense. The question of reasonableness is peculiarly within the province of the jury.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the 'imminent harm' element of self-defense, particularly in the context of bullying and when children are involved. It establishes that a history of conflict and threats can give meaning to an otherwise ambiguous act, making it a sufficient basis for a reasonable belief of impending danger. The ruling empowers juries to consider the entire context of the parties' relationship, rather than just the isolated moment of the altercation. This precedent suggests that a victim of persistent bullying does not have to wait for an attacker to land the first blow if the aggressor's prior conduct and current actions make an attack seem imminent.
