AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |
Back to Blog
Defend your castle law in oa11/16/2023 On appeal, the defendant raised two issues on appeal. He then filed a timely appeal to the Pennsylvania Superior Court. ![]() ![]() The defendant filed post-sentence motions for reconsideration which were denied. The trial court sentenced the defendant to an aggregate term of 25-50 years’ incarceration. The jury then convicted the defendant of the above crimes, and the trial court subsequently convicted him, following a bench trial, of persons not to possess a firearm in violation of 18 Pa.C.S. The trial court denied his request for this jury instruction. Prior to the court’s instructions to the jury, the defendant requested a charge directing the jury to consider the castle doctrine, which would inform the jury of a presumption of a reasonable belief that deadly force was necessary for the defendant to defend himself based on the victim’s unauthorized entry into the defendant’s home. The defendant was subsequently arrested and charged with attempted murder, aggravated assault, recklessly endangering another person, simple assault, and persons not to possess a firearm.Īt trial, the defendant raised a claim of self-defense. The police later discovered that, because of the defendant’s prior criminal record, he was not allowed to possess the gun. The bullet went through the door and struck the victim in his small intestine and colon. 40 caliber semiautomatic pistol through the door without opening it. The defendant, however, testified that he believed that the victim was attempting to break into his house, but there was nothing to support the defendant’s belief beyond the victim’s knocking on the door.Īfter the victim knocked on the door, the defendant fired a. It is unclear how many times the victim banged on the defendant’s door, but there was no evidence presented at trial that the victim actually attempted to enter the defendant’s house beyond knocking on the door. The defendant had a closed-circuit television system that permitted him to see the area outside his door. After being denied entry to the party, the victim proceeded to bang on the defendant’s door. At 1:17 a.m., the victim and his friends attempted to enter a party around the carriage house, but were denied entry. The victim and his friends were intoxicated. That night, the victim and his friends went out into West Chester wearing Halloween costumes. In Cannavo, the defendant was staying at a carriage house near West Chester University on Halloween in 2015. Instead, prior to instructing a jury on Pennsylvania’s castle doctrine defense, the court must find that there is evidence of record from which the defendant could have objectively, reasonably believed that someone was trying to enter his or her house without permission. Cannavo, holding that a defendant is not entitled to raise the Castle Doctrine defense solely because he subjectively believed that the victim was trying to enter his house. The Pennsylvania Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v.
0 Comments
Read More
Leave a Reply. |