State v. Abbott
174 A.2d 881 (1961)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An individual has a duty to retreat before using deadly force in self-defense, but this duty arises only when the individual knows that a completely safe avenue of retreat is available.
Facts:
- Frank Abbott shared a common driveway with his neighbors, Michael and Mary Scarano.
- After Abbott created a small asphalt doorstop on the driveway, Nicholas Scarano, the son of Michael and Mary, confronted him.
- A fistfight ensued between Abbott and Nicholas Scarano.
- Following the initial punch, Michael Scarano approached Abbott armed with a hatchet.
- Mary Scarano then allegedly approached Abbott, armed with a carving knife and a large fork.
- Abbott wrested the hatchet from Michael Scarano.
- In the ensuing struggle, all three Scaranos were struck by the hatchet, and Nicholas sustained severe head injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Frank Abbott was tried in a New Jersey trial court on three separate indictments for atrocious assault and battery.
- The jury acquitted Abbott of the charges relating to Michael and Mary Scarano but convicted him of the charge relating to Nicholas Scarano.
- Abbott, as appellant, appealed his conviction to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey.
- The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's judgment of conviction.
- The Supreme Court of New Jersey granted Abbott's petition for certification to review the Appellate Division's decision.
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 an individual obligated to retreat before using deadly force in self-defense, and if so, under what specific conditions does this duty arise?
Opinions:
Majority - Weintraub, C. J.
Yes, an individual is obligated to retreat before using deadly force in self-defense, but this duty arises only if the defendant uses deadly force and knows they can retreat with complete safety. The court affirmed New Jersey's retreat rule, reasoning that it is better for an assailed person to retreat than for a life to be needlessly spent. However, the court clarified the rule's limitations. The duty to retreat arises only if the defendant resorts to deadly force, defined as force used with the purpose of causing, or which one knows creates a substantial risk of, death or serious bodily harm. If a defendant uses only moderate, non-deadly force, they may stand their ground. Furthermore, the opportunity to retreat must be one that the defendant knows is available and can be taken with complete safety. The State bears the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew a completely safe retreat was possible. The trial court’s jury instruction was erroneous because it was an abstract proposition unmoored from the facts and incorrectly suggested the duty to retreat depended on the nature of the attack on the defendant, rather than the nature of the force used by the defendant in response.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the 'duty to retreat' doctrine in New Jersey by establishing a more precise and protective standard for defendants claiming self-defense. It establishes a clear, two-part inquiry: the defendant must use deadly force, and must know that a completely safe retreat is possible. By explicitly placing the burden of proof on the state to show that a defendant knew they could retreat safely, the court strengthens the self-defense claim against prosecutorial challenge. The opinion serves as a crucial guide for trial courts, mandating that jury instructions on self-defense be clearly linked to the specific facts of the case rather than being presented as abstract legal principles.
Unlock the full brief for State v. Abbott