State v. W.J.B.
166 W. Va. 602, 276 S.E.2d 550, 1981 W. Va. LEXIS 586 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An occupant of a dwelling is justified in using deadly force against an unlawful, violent intruder if the occupant has reasonable grounds to believe the intruder intends to commit a felony or inflict personal injury, and that such force is necessary to prevent it; the occupant need not be in apprehension of imminent death or serious bodily harm.
Facts:
- Michael Watson, age 21, had a history of violent and threatening behavior towards 17-year-old W.J.B. and his family, stemming from a tumultuous relationship with W.J.B.'s 15-year-old sister.
- In the months prior, Watson had pursued the sister with a knife inside the family home and, on another occasion, broke in through a second-story window to attack W.J.B. and drag the sister from a room.
- W.J.B.'s mother had previously obtained three separate arrest warrants against Watson for assault, destruction of property, and other charges.
- On the night of the incident, Watson, who appeared to have been drinking, broke down the family's living room door and chased W.J.B.'s sister into a bedroom before fleeing when he learned police had been called.
- After police responded and left, Watson reappeared outside the house, shouting threats, throwing objects, and was observed by a passerby holding a butcher knife.
- W.J.B. retrieved a shotgun and sat in the living room for protection.
- Watson then kicked open the living room door a second time, continued shouting challenges at W.J.B., and advanced toward him.
- While seated, W.J.B. shot Watson once in the chest, killing him instantly. Police later found a knife in Watson's hand under his body.
Procedural Posture:
- The State filed a juvenile delinquency petition in the Circuit Court of Wood County, charging W.J.B. with murder.
- The State's motion to transfer W.J.B. to the court's adult criminal jurisdiction was denied by the Circuit Court.
- Following an adjudicatory hearing, the Circuit Court found W.J.B. had committed voluntary manslaughter and adjudicated him a juvenile delinquent.
- The court ordered W.J.B. placed in the custody of the Department of Welfare.
- W.J.B. appealed the adjudication to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence.
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 State fail to rebut a juvenile's claim of self-defense when the juvenile uses deadly force against an intruder who has a documented history of violence against the family and who, on the night of the killing, forcibly entered the home twice while making threats?
Opinions:
Majority - Miller, Justice
No. The State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the juvenile did not act in self-defense. Under West Virginia law, a person attacked in their own home has no duty to retreat. Furthermore, an occupant may use deadly force against a violent intruder not only when fearing imminent death or serious bodily harm, but also when they have a reasonable belief that the intruder intends to commit a felony or inflict personal injury and that deadly force is necessary to prevent it. The reasonableness of this belief must be judged based on the circumstances at the time, including the victim's history of violence and threats. Given Watson's extensive history of unprovoked assaults against W.J.B. and his family, combined with his two violent entries into the home on the night of the shooting, his threats, and his final advance on W.J.B., the juvenile's use of deadly force was a reasonable act of self-defense. Therefore, the State's evidence was insufficient to rebut the self-defense claim.
Analysis:
This case clarifies and strengthens the 'castle doctrine' in West Virginia by establishing a standard for the use of deadly force in the home that is broader than traditional self-defense. The court moves away from the strict requirement of fearing 'imminent death or serious bodily harm,' lowering the threshold for justifiable homicide against a violent intruder. This precedent provides greater legal protection to individuals defending themselves and their families within their dwellings, making it more difficult for the State to secure a conviction when a homeowner uses deadly force against an intruder with a history of violence. The decision underscores the legal principle that a person's home is a sanctuary where the right to self-preservation is paramount.
