State v. Fair
1965 N.J. LEXIS 163, 211 A.2d 359, 45 N.J. 77 (1965)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A person may use force to defend another if they subjectively believe the other person is in peril and a jury objectively finds that this belief was reasonable under the circumstances, even if the belief was factually mistaken.
Facts:
- John B. Lynn, Dollie Fair, and Aaron R. Rudesel were drinking whiskey together in an apartment.
- Rudesel began to berate Fair for having gone across the street and suddenly hit her in the mouth.
- Fair grabbed a paring knife and struck at Rudesel.
- Rudesel then grabbed Fair's hands, pushed her into a chair, and cut her on the finger with a knife from his pocket, stating, 'I will get even with you for that.'
- Lynn witnessed this, jumped up, and said, 'Man, you shouldn’t cut your woman like that.'
- Lynn then intervened in the altercation on Fair's behalf, and during the ensuing struggle, Rudesel was fatally stabbed in the chest.
Procedural Posture:
- John B. Lynn and Dollie Fair were charged with murder in a single indictment.
- Following a joint trial in the court of first instance, the jury returned a verdict finding Lynn guilty of second-degree murder and Fair guilty of manslaughter.
- Both defendants, Lynn and Fair, appealed their convictions directly to the Supreme Court of New Jersey.
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 the right of a person to use force in defense of another determined by the intervener's own reasonable belief that the third party is being unlawfully attacked, rather than by the third party's actual right to self-defense?
Opinions:
Majority - Haneman, J.
Yes, a person's right to intervene in defense of another is determined by the intervener's own reasonable belief about the necessity of using force. The court explicitly rejects the 'alter ego' rule, which would impute the fault of the defended party to the intervener. Instead, it adopts the 'objective test' theory, which exonerates an individual from criminal liability if they intervene under a reasonable but mistaken belief that they are protecting someone from an unlawful assault. This 'reasonable mistake of fact' doctrine applies both to the initial decision to intervene and the amount of force used. The court reasoned that this standard is just, as individuals act based on appearances, not absolute truth, and is supported by the public policy of encouraging bystanders to aid those who appear to be victims of an assault.
Analysis:
This decision establishes the 'reasonable belief' standard for the affirmative defense of 'defense of another' in New Jersey, aligning the state with the Model Penal Code and a more modern legal approach. By rejecting the older 'alter ego' rule, the court protects individuals who act as 'Good Samaritans' based on a reasonable assessment of a situation, even if they are factually mistaken. This precedent clarifies that the focus of the legal inquiry is on the intervener's state of mind and the objective reasonableness of their perceptions, rather than on the actual culpability of the person being defended. The ruling significantly impacts future cases by ensuring that this crucial defense is presented to the jury whenever evidence supports a defendant's claim that they reasonably believed they were protecting an innocent person from harm.
