Also known as: innocent homicides · justifiable homicide · excusable homicide
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A killing of one person by another that the law classifies as either justifiable or excusable. Such a killing carries no criminal liability because it falls outside the residual category of unlawful homicides.
Martin, a security officer at a benefits office, saw Diane leap over the counter toward a clerk with arms extended during a chaotic day of angry claimants. Martin fired and killed Diane. Because the facts showed an apparent imminent assault on the clerk and no legal command or recognized defense was required to be disproven first, the killing was treated as innocent homicide rather than criminal.
During an argument, a husband advanced on his wife after prior beatings. She warned him to stop but, fearing for her life, shot him twice when he kept coming. The court instructed that deadly force is permitted only against an attack threatening death or great bodily harm after all other means of avoidance have been exhausted. Because the facts met that standard, the killing qualified as innocent homicide.
This was a writ of error to a judgment of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Arkansas sentencing the plaintiff in error to death for the murder of Philip Henson, a white man, in the Cherokee Nation of the Indian Territory. The defendant was tried and convicted in 1893, and upon such conviction being set aside by this court, 150 U. S. 551, was again tried and convicted in 1894. The case was again reversed, 157 U. S. 675, when Allen was tried for the third time and convicted, and this writ of error was sued out. The facts are so fully set forth in the previous reports of the case that it is unnecessary to repeat them here. We are somewhat embarrassed in the consideration of this case by the voluminousness of the charge, and of the exceptions taken thereto, as well as by the absence of a brief on the part of the plaintiff in error.
View caseCommon law divides homicide into three categories. Justifiable homicide covers killings the law expressly commands or authorizes. Excusable homicide covers killings for which the law recognizes a complete defense eliminating criminal liability. Criminal homicide is the residual category of all other unlawful killings.
Supporting sources
A homicide is innocent when it is either justifiable because the law affirmatively authorizes it or excusable because a recognized defense such as self-defense or defense of others eliminates liability. Without one of those two classifications the killing falls into the criminal category.
Supporting sources
No. An internal corporate safety rule lacks the force of law and does not constitute the express legal authorization required for justifiable homicide. The killing therefore remains outside the justifiable category unless another recognized ground applies.
Supporting sources
Defense of others makes a killing excusable when the actor reasonably believes another person faces imminent unlawful harm and uses force necessary to stop the threat. The common law protects such interventions, placing the homicide in the excusable rather than criminal category.
Supporting sources
…instruction proposed by her; and (2) the court erred in its comments to the jury on the evidence. The defendant’s defense was justifiable homicide. On that issue the court instructed the jury as follows: 1. “Homicide is justifiable and not unlawful when committed by any person when resisting any attempt to murder any person, or to…