State v. Stewart
243 Kan. 639, 763 P.2d 572 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The statutory justification for self-defense is not available to a defendant who kills their abuser while the abuser is sleeping, because there is no imminent threat of unlawful force at the time of the killing. The test for the reasonableness of a defendant's belief in the need for self-defense is objective: whether a reasonable person in the defendant's circumstances would have perceived self-defense as necessary.
Facts:
- Peggy Stewart was married to Mike Stewart, who subjected her and her two daughters to a long and severe history of physical, psychological, and sexual abuse.
- Mike Stewart frequently threatened Peggy's life, at one point holding a shotgun to her head and at another time kicking her so violently she required hospitalization.
- Peggy fled to a hospital in Oklahoma, but Mike retrieved her, threatening to kill her if she ever ran away again.
- Upon their return home, Mike repeatedly forced Peggy to perform oral sex and made comments she interpreted as threats that he was going to kill her soon.
- The next morning, Peggy found a loaded .357 magnum and hid it under a mattress in a spare room.
- That night, after they went to bed, Peggy lay awake for two hours while Mike slept.
- Around 10:00 p.m., Peggy retrieved the hidden gun and shot and killed Mike while he was sleeping.
Procedural Posture:
- Peggy Stewart was charged with first-degree murder for the killing of her husband, Mike Stewart, in a Kansas trial court.
- At trial, Stewart pled not guilty and asserted the defense of self-defense, presenting expert testimony on battered woman syndrome.
- The trial judge instructed the jury on the law of self-defense.
- The jury returned a verdict of not guilty, acquitting Stewart.
- The prosecution appealed to the Kansas Supreme Court, the state's highest court, upon a question of law reserved, challenging the propriety of the trial court's self-defense instruction under the facts of the case.
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 the statutory justification for the use of deadly force in self-defense permit a jury instruction for a battered woman who kills her abusive spouse while he is sleeping and not posing an imminent threat?
Opinions:
Majority - Lockett, J.
No. The statutory justification for the use of deadly force in self-defense does not apply where there is no evidence of an imminent threat contemporaneous with the killing. For a self-defense instruction to be warranted, there must be some showing of a confrontational circumstance involving an overt act by an aggressor creating a reasonable belief that one is in imminent danger. Killing a sleeping spouse, regardless of a history of abuse or the existence of battered woman syndrome, does not meet this imminence requirement, as the victim poses no immediate threat. Furthermore, the court clarified that the standard for reasonableness is not purely subjective; it requires both a subjective belief by the defendant and an objective determination of whether a reasonable person in the defendant's circumstances would have held that belief.
Dissenting - Herd, J.
Yes. A defendant is entitled to a self-defense instruction if there is any evidence to support it, and it is the jury's role, not an appellate court's, to weigh that evidence and determine the reasonableness of the defendant's belief. The extensive and uncontroverted evidence of Mike's long-term abuse, his recent threats to kill Peggy, and expert testimony that she was in a 'lethal situation' constituted sufficient evidence for a jury to find she reasonably believed she was in imminent danger. The dissent argues that in the context of battered woman syndrome, the danger does not cease merely because the abuser is momentarily passive or asleep, and the jury should be allowed to consider the cumulative effect of the 'reign of terror' in determining imminence.
Analysis:
This case significantly limits the application of the battered woman syndrome as a justification for homicide in Kansas. It establishes a bright-line rule that the 'imminent danger' requirement for self-defense cannot be met when the victim is passive and not posing a contemporaneous threat, such as when sleeping. The decision also solidifies the legal standard for self-defense as having both subjective and objective components, clarifying that a defendant's personal belief must be one that a reasonable person in the same circumstances would share. This holding makes it more difficult for defendants in abusive relationships to claim self-defense if they act during a lull in the violence rather than during an active confrontation.
Unlock the full brief for State v. Stewart