State v. Marr
362 Md. 467, 765 A.2d 645 (2001) (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a claim of perfect self-defense, the reasonableness of the defendant's belief of imminent danger is determined by an objective standard. While the jury must consider the circumstances as the defendant perceived them, that perception itself must be one that a reasonable person in the defendant's position could have formed.
Facts:
- On November 29, 1998, Arthur Carroll, Kevin Jackson, and Jerome Wright went to Nathaniel Marr's home to rob him.
- Marr was not present, but during the robbery, one or more of the men shot and killed Marr's cousin, Ronald Muse, who lived with him.
- On December 2, 1998, Marr and a confederate, Curtis Alston, armed themselves and went looking for Carroll.
- Marr and Alston located Carroll as he was about to enter a taxicab.
- Marr claimed that Carroll, startled, grabbed at his waist as if to draw a weapon.
- In response, Marr and Alston opened fire, killing Carroll and wounding the taxi driver, Jimmy Abass.
Procedural Posture:
- Nathaniel Marr was convicted of first-degree murder and other charges in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County (a trial court).
- Marr appealed his conviction to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland (an intermediate appellate court), arguing the trial court erred by refusing his requested jury instructions on self-defense.
- The Court of Special Appeals, as appellee, agreed with Marr, the appellant, and reversed the conviction, finding the refusal was reversible error.
- The State of Maryland, as appellant, petitioned for a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Maryland (the state's highest court), which was granted to review the decision of the Court of Special 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:
Does a trial court commit reversible error by refusing a jury instruction stating that the reasonableness of a defendant's conduct in a self-defense claim should be judged solely by the facts as they appeared to the defendant?
Opinions:
Majority - Wilner, Judge
No. A trial court does not commit reversible error by refusing to give an instruction that could mislead the jury into applying a purely subjective standard for the reasonableness of a defendant's belief in a self-defense claim. The standard for reasonableness in perfect self-defense is objective, requiring the jury to assess whether a reasonable person under the same circumstances would have held the defendant's belief. While the jury must consider the facts as perceived by the defendant, this assessment is limited; the perception itself must be one a reasonable person could have formed. The requested instruction was overly broad and risked blurring the critical distinction between perfect self-defense (which requires an objectively reasonable belief and results in acquittal) and imperfect self-defense (based on a subjectively honest but objectively unreasonable belief, which mitigates murder to manslaughter).
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the objective nature of the reasonableness standard in Maryland's perfect self-defense doctrine. It establishes that a defendant's subjective perception of danger is not the sole determinant; that perception must itself pass a test of reasonableness. The ruling prevents the perfect self-defense doctrine from being expanded to include defendants whose beliefs of danger are based on wholly unreasonable or irrational perceptions of the facts. By reining in potentially misleading jury instructions, the court reinforces the distinction between a complete justification for homicide (perfect self-defense) and a mitigating factor (imperfect self-defense).
Unlock the full brief for State v. Marr