State v. Johnson
1998 NMCA 019, 124 N.M. 647, 954 P.2d 79 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The use of deadly force by a private citizen to apprehend a fleeing felon is justifiable only when the citizen has probable cause to believe he or she, or another, is threatened with serious bodily harm or deadly force by the suspect.
Facts:
- On April 20, 1995, Aaron Johnson and Steve Haddox were at a party when they were told someone was breaking into a friend's Suzuki automobile.
- Johnson and Haddox went to the parking lot and saw Abel Gallegos run from the Suzuki, get into a waiting car, and begin to speed away.
- They observed that the Suzuki's window was broken and the car stereo was missing.
- Johnson and Haddox both produced handguns and fired a total of eleven shots at the fleeing vehicle.
- A bullet from Johnson’s gun struck and killed Gallegos.
- No weapons were found on Gallegos or in his car, and neither Johnson nor Haddox claimed to have acted in self-defense at the scene.
Procedural Posture:
- Aaron Johnson was charged with second-degree murder in a New Mexico district court (trial court).
- The trial court judge refused Johnson's request for a jury instruction on the defense of justifiable homicide in the apprehension of a fleeing felon.
- Johnson entered a conditional plea of guilty to the lesser included offense of involuntary manslaughter.
- As part of the plea agreement, Johnson reserved the right to appeal the district court's refusal to provide the requested jury instruction.
- Johnson (appellant) appealed the trial court's decision to the New Mexico Court of Appeals.
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 use of deadly force by a private citizen to apprehend a fleeing felon who poses no threat of serious bodily harm or death justifiable under New Mexico's justifiable homicide statute?
Opinions:
Majority - Bosson, J.
No. The use of deadly force by a private citizen to apprehend a fleeing felon is justifiable only when there is an objective threat of serious harm. The state's justifiable homicide statute, which permits deadly force when "necessarily committed...by lawful ways and means," must be interpreted through a modern lens of reasonableness. The court rejected Johnson's argument that this statute allows any force necessary to stop a fleeing felon, regardless of the danger posed. The court found it would be an irrational anomaly to grant private citizens greater latitude to use deadly force than trained police officers, who are constitutionally limited by the principles in Tennessee v. Garner. Under Garner, police may only use deadly force against a fleeing suspect if there is probable cause to believe the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury. The court held that the statutory phrase "by lawful ways and means" incorporates this same standard of objective reasonableness, requiring that the citizen apprehending a felon must fear proportionate harm. As Gallegos was unarmed and fleeing after a nonviolent property crime, there was no evidence he posed a threat of serious bodily harm, making Johnson's use of deadly force unreasonable as a matter of law.
Analysis:
This decision significantly modernizes New Mexico's common law rule regarding citizen's arrests by aligning the standard for a private citizen's use of deadly force with the constitutional standard for law enforcement established in Tennessee v. Garner. The court interprets the ambiguous statutory phrase "lawful ways and means" to incorporate an objective reasonableness standard, effectively preventing the use of lethal force to stop nonviolent, fleeing felons. This ruling curtails vigilantism by clarifying that deadly force is a last resort reserved for situations involving a threat of serious bodily harm, not for the protection of property.
