People v. Clark
181 Cal. Rptr. 682, 130 Cal.App.3d 371, 1982 Cal. App. LEXIS 1523 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The use of deadly force in self-defense is only justified to repel an attack which is in itself deadly or likely to cause great bodily injury. When an attacker intends only a non-deadly assault, the reasonableness of using deadly force in response is a question of fact for the jury, not a matter of law for the court.
Facts:
- William James Clark had a two-year sexual affair with Gayle Simmons, the wife of David Simmons.
- After Gayle ended the affair and informed her husband, David became enraged, made verbal threats against Clark, and engaged in vehicle chases with him on several occasions.
- In response to the threats and confrontations, Clark began carrying a loaded pistol under the seat of his vehicle.
- On the day of the incident, David saw Clark's vehicle, pursued him, and blocked Clark's driveway with his truck.
- Clark's wife advised him to drive home so he could 'have it out' with David, and Clark agreed it was 'bound to happen sooner or later.'
- David exited his truck, approached Clark's driver-side window while appearing furious, and stated, 'your time is now.'
- Clark had retrieved his pistol from under the seat.
- As David reached into the open window of Clark's vehicle, the pistol discharged into David's chest, killing him.
Procedural Posture:
- William James Clark was tried before a jury in a California superior court.
- The jury found Clark guilty of involuntary manslaughter.
- The trial court granted Clark probation, which included a condition that he pay restitution to the victim's children.
- Clark, as appellant, appealed the judgment and the conditions of his probation to the California Court of Appeal.
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's use of deadly force against an unarmed aggressor, who intended to commit a non-deadly assault, justifiable self-defense as a matter of law?
Opinions:
Majority - Reynoso, J.
No. A defendant's use of deadly force against an unarmed aggressor is not justifiable self-defense as a matter of law because the reasonableness and necessity of the force used are questions of fact for the jury. The principles of self-defense are founded on the doctrine of necessity. While defendant Clark had a right to defend himself against David Simmons's intended assault, that right did not automatically justify the use of deadly force. Deadly force is permissible only to repel an attack that is itself deadly or likely to cause great bodily injury; a 'misdemeanor assault must be suffered without the privilege of retaliating with deadly force.' Here, the evidence showed Simmons was unarmed and intended only fisticuffs. Because reasonable jurors could conclude that Clark's use of a pistol was an excessive and unnecessary response to the threat posed by Simmons, the claim of self-defense was not established as a matter of law. The court also held that the involuntary manslaughter instructions were proper, the prosecution's character evidence was appropriate rebuttal, and the probation condition requiring restitution to the victim's children was a valid exercise of judicial discretion aimed at rehabilitation and making amends.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the critical distinction between the right to self-defense and the justification for using deadly force. It reinforces the principle of proportionality, holding that the level of force used in self-defense must be reasonably necessary to repel the specific threat faced. The decision solidifies that whether force was excessive is a quintessential question of fact for the jury, preventing defendants from easily overturning convictions on appeal by claiming self-defense as a matter of law unless the evidence is entirely uncontradicted. Furthermore, the ruling broadens the scope of permissible probation conditions by affirming that restitution can be ordered to indirect victims, such as the deceased's children, so long as the condition serves a statutory purpose like rehabilitation or making amends for the harm caused by the crime.
