Also known as: excusable homicides
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A category of homicide at common law consisting of killings for which the law recognizes a complete defense that eliminates criminal liability.
Emanuel Escobar drove a city bus when a passenger refused to pay and pulled a knife. Emanuel grappled with the passenger to protect other riders and disarmed him. During the struggle the passenger fell under the wheels and died. Because Emanuel acted under a complete defense of self and others the killing is excusable homicide rather than criminal.
Ethan Evans attended a parent-teacher conference when the parent cornered the principal and raised a chair overhead. Ethan shoved the parent to protect the principal and nearby students. The parent fell through a glass door and died from the resulting injuries. The shove rested on the recognized defense of others so the death is excusable homicide.
In June 1966, a jury convicted Stillman E. Wilbur, Jr. of murder in a Maine state court. The prosecution introduced Wilbur's pretrial statement describing how he fatally assaulted Claude Hebert in Hebert's hotel room after a homosexual advance, together with circumstantial evidence of the killing. Although the defense presented no evidence at trial, it argued that Wilbur lacked criminal intent or that the homicide amounted at most to manslaughter because it occurred in the heat of passion provoked by the advance. The trial court instructed the jury that an intentional and unlawful homicide would support a finding of malice aforethought unless the defendant proved by a fair preponderance of the evidence that he acted in the heat of passion on sudden provocation. After the jury twice returned for additional instructions on implied malice and the definition of heat of passion, it convicted Wilbur of murder. Wilbur appealed his conviction to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, which upheld the trial court's instructions and affirmed the judgment. Wilbur then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal district court. The district court granted the petition, and the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed that decision. After the Maine Supreme Judicial Court issued its opinion in State v. Lafferty reaffirming its view of state law, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in this case and remanded to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration. On remand, that court again applied Winship, this time to the Maine law as construed by the Maine Supreme Judicial Court. The Supreme Court granted certiorari a second time to consider the constitutional question presented by the Maine homicide law as applied to Wilbur's case.
View caseExcusable homicide applies when a recognized defense such as self-defense or defense of others eliminates criminal liability for an otherwise unlawful killing. Justifiable homicide applies only when the law expressly commands or authorizes the killing itself such as an execution or an officer acting under lawful authority.
Supporting sources
Yes. When the actor engages in a lawful defensive act and an unintended death results the killing falls into the excusable category because the complete defense removes criminal liability.
Supporting sources
No. At common law deadly force is not authorized solely to protect property once any immediate threat to personal safety has ended so the resulting killing remains criminal homicide.
Supporting sources
The killing is justifiable homicide because the officer acted within express legal authority rather than under a mere defense that excuses liability.
Supporting sources
…principles to homicide prosecution, and the "will-of-the-wisp" distinction drawn by the Almeida court between justifiable and excusable homicides. 261 A.2d at 553-558 . It concluded, "beyond a shadow of a doubt Almeida and Thomas [ Commonwealth v. Thomas , 382 Pa. 639, 117 A.2d 204] constituted iberrations [sic] in the…