Also known as: justifiable homicides · justified homicide
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A classification of homicide at common law encompassing killings that the law expressly commands or authorizes. Such killings fall outside the categories of excusable homicide and criminal homicide.
Julia Jensen operated a convenience store when an armed man entered and demanded money from customers at gunpoint. Jensen drew her licensed firearm and fired at the robber during the struggle, killing him. The resulting death receives classification as justifiable homicide because the law expressly authorizes the use of deadly force to resist a violent felony.
Jada Jones, a sheriff's deputy, received orders to disperse a violent crowd throwing objects at a courthouse. Jones fired a warning shot that struck and killed one rioter. The death is classified as justifiable homicide because Jones acted under lawful public authority to restore order.
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 caseJillian James awoke to find an intruder climbing through her bedroom window while brandishing a knife. James shot and killed the intruder. The killing receives classification as justifiable homicide because the law authorizes deadly force when a person reasonably believes it necessary to prevent imminent death or serious injury.
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 caseJustifiable homicide covers killings the law expressly commands or authorizes, such as an officer acting under lawful authority or a person using deadly force to resist a violent felony. Excusable homicide covers killings for which the law recognizes a defense that eliminates criminal liability, such as certain accidents or imperfect self-defense.
Supporting sources
Yes. When an officer acts under department protocols to disperse a riot and employs authorized force against an active threat, the resulting killing falls within the category of killings the law expressly authorizes.
Supporting sources
No. Justifiable homicide requires express legal authorization, and defense of property alone rarely justifies the use of deadly force. A killing to prevent theft of tools, without any threat of death or serious bodily harm, falls outside the justifiable category.
Supporting sources
An honest but unreasonable belief does not produce justifiable homicide. The killing remains unlawful and intentional, though the belief may mitigate murder to voluntary manslaughter under imperfect self-defense doctrines recognized in some jurisdictions.
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…