Results 1 to 4 of 4
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    1

    Question Justifiable Homicide and Self-Defense in Idaho

    I had a question about the phrasing used in this:

    "17 18-4009. JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE BY ANY PERSON. (1) Homicide is also jus
    18 tifiable when committed by any person in either any of the following cases:
    19 1.(a) When resisting any attempt to murder any person, or to commit a
    20 felony, or to do some great bodily injury upon any person;"

    external link to sb 1313:
    https://legislature.idaho.gov/wp-con...tion/S1313.pdf

    This seems to indicate that a person committing a felony may be killed lawfully. I know this seems like an extreme example, and can't possibly be legal, but if a person is selling more than 28.25 grams of marijuana, both parties in said transaction are committing felony drug distribution. By the phrasing used in that bill, killing them would be considered "Justifiable Homicide".
    A step further: Tax Evasion is a felony. A person who is committing Tax Evasion is committing a felony, killing him/her would be considered "Justifiable Homicide".

    I certainly hope I've missed several key details. Shedding light on this would make me feel much more comfortable.
    If I have not, any proposed rephrasing would be appreciated!

    Cheers,
    -Jim the Guy

    If this is in the wrong place tell me/move it. Greatly appreciated!

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    California
    Posts
    20,594

    Default Re: Justifiable Homicide and Self-Defense in Idaho


  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    18,340

    Default Re: Justifiable Homicide and Self-Defense in Idaho

    As usual, somebody is drawing a conclusion by taking one sentence out of context.

    Read the whole statute and you'll find that you aren't getting away with killing somebody for committing the felony of tax evasion or selling drugs or stealing unattended vehicles, etc, etc.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    8,238

    Default Re: Justifiable Homicide and Self-Defense in Idaho

    Quote Quoting Jim the Guy
    View Post

    This seems to indicate that a person committing a felony may be killed lawfully. I know this seems like an extreme example, and can't possibly be legal, but if a person is selling more than 28.25 grams of marijuana, both parties in said transaction are committing felony drug distribution. By the phrasing used in that bill, killing them would be considered "Justifiable Homicide".
    A step further: Tax Evasion is a felony. A person who is committing Tax Evasion is committing a felony, killing him/her would be considered "Justifiable Homicide".

    I certainly hope I've missed several key details. Shedding light on this would make me feel much more comfortable.
    If I have not, any proposed rephrasing would be appreciated!
    That part of the statute you quoted is not changed in the bill that just passed. The rule in Idaho regarding self-defense to resist a felony is well over 100 years old. The Idaho Supreme Court addressed that as early as 1901. That case the court stated that it the use of deadly force would not be permitted “unless it be rendered necessary to prevent a destruction of his property, or to defend himself against loss of life or bodily harm.” State v. Dixon, 7 Idaho 518, 63 P. 801, 802 (1901). So certainly killing someone to prevent them from committing tax evasion would not be permitted. First, resisting a felony implies that the person is committing the felony against you, and tax evasion is a crime committed against government. And second, no destruction of property or loss of life or limb is at risk in tax evasion. Under those same principles, someone could not simply shoot persons they see engaging in a felony drug transaction.

    Subsequent cases of the Idaho courts on self-defense make it clear that the self-defense has be grounded in necessity — that the taking of the life is necessary to prevent the harm.

    Again in the same instruction, and to which complaint is made, the court instructed the jury that the circumstances surrounding appellant must have been such as to impress a reasonable man under the same state of facts with the belief of imminent peril and of the existence of an urgent necessity to take the life of his assailant, as the only apparent alternative of saving his own life, or else of preventing the infliction on him (appellant) of grievous bodily harm. Such language is unobjectionable. The law of self-defense is founded in necessity, and when it is made to appear in any case that no necessity, either real or apparent, exists, the defense of self-defense fails.

    State v. Jurko, 42 Idaho 319, 245 P. 685, 689 (1926). So, if the felony could be resisted by something other than killing the prepetrator the killing would not be justified as self-defense.

    The changes to the Idaho statute on self-defense does not change any of this.

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Similar Threads

  1. Abortion As Justifiable Homicide
    By LexNonScripta in forum Debate the Issues
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 03-16-2017, 02:57 PM
  2. Homicide: Claiming Coercion as a Defense to Homicide Charges
    By lvndwrld in forum Criminal Charges
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 12-05-2013, 05:18 PM
  3. Homicide: Homicide Charges and Self-Defense
    By Brosull in forum Criminal Charges
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 03-09-2012, 02:02 PM
  4. Homicide: What to Do After a Homicide, Commited in Self-Defense
    By jacqueline36 in forum Criminal Charges
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 05-15-2011, 11:56 PM
  5. Assault & Battery: Homicide or Self Defense
    By Aliswrong in forum Criminal Charges
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-05-2011, 05:42 PM
 
 
Sponsored Links

Legal Help, Information and Resources