State v. Giminski
634 N.W.2d 604, 247 Wis. 2d. 750 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The privilege of using force in defense of others requires that the actor's belief of an unlawful interference and the necessity of their intervention be objectively reasonable, a standard which is not met when interfering with a known law enforcement officer lawfully executing their duties.
Facts:
- U.S. Secret Service agents, including Edward Rooney and John Hirt, arrived at John F. Giminski's residence with a valid warrant to seize two vehicles.
- After being informed of the warrant, Giminski's daughter, Elva, attempted to drive away in one of the vehicles, a minivan.
- Agent Rooney pursued Elva in his vehicle with its siren activated, cut her off, and collided with the minivan to stop her.
- Giminski's other daughter, Ava, screamed that an agent had a gun to Elva's head and was going to kill her.
- Giminski observed Agent Hirt pulling Elva from the driver's seat of the van with a gun held near her.
- Believing his daughter was in mortal danger, Giminski retrieved a handgun from his ex-wife's residence.
- Giminski approached Agent Hirt, pointed the gun at him, and demanded he get away from his daughter.
- A struggle for the gun ensued between Giminski and Agent Hirt, during which the gun discharged multiple times, wounding both men.
Procedural Posture:
- John F. Giminski was tried by a jury in a Wisconsin trial court on charges of attempted first-degree intentional homicide and possession of a firearm by a felon.
- During the trial, the defense requested that the jury be given an instruction on the privilege of acting in defense of others.
- The trial court denied the request for the jury instruction.
- The jury returned a verdict convicting Giminski on both counts.
- Giminski filed a motion for postconviction relief, which the trial court denied.
- Giminski (appellant) appealed the judgment of conviction and the order denying his postconviction motion to the Court of Appeals 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:
Is a criminal defendant entitled to a jury instruction on the privilege of defense of others when he uses deadly force against a known federal agent who is lawfully preventing the defendant's daughter from interfering with the execution of a warrant?
Opinions:
Majority - Schudson, J.
No. A defendant is not entitled to a jury instruction on the privilege of defense of others where their belief in the necessity of using force against a known law enforcement officer was not objectively reasonable. The privilege of defense of others has both a subjective and an objective component. While Giminski may have subjectively believed his daughter was in danger, this belief was not objectively reasonable. Giminski knew the agents were federal officers lawfully executing a warrant, that his daughter was unlawfully interfering with that seizure, and that the agents were therefore entitled to use force to stop her. A person of ordinary prudence in Giminski's position could not have reasonably believed that the agent, in broad daylight in a residential neighborhood, was going to harm his daughter beyond what was necessary to effectuate the lawful seizure. The principles of self-defense must accommodate a citizen's duty to accede to lawful government power.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the objective reasonableness standard for the defense-of-others privilege, especially in confrontations with law enforcement. It establishes that a defendant's knowledge of an officer's lawful purpose is a critical factor in determining whether a belief in the need for forceful intervention is reasonable. The ruling reinforces the legal principle that citizens generally cannot use force to resist lawful police actions, extending this concept to third-party intervention. Future defendants in similar situations will face a high burden to show that it was objectively reasonable to believe an officer was acting unlawfully or using excessive force before a defense-of-others claim can be considered by a jury.
Unlock the full brief for State v. Giminski