Brown v. United States

Background

A man working as a supervisor on excavation for a post office in federal land in Texas shot and killed Hermes after long-running trouble between them. Hermes had twice assaulted the supervisor with a knife and issued threats. On the day in question Hermes approached with a knife; the supervisor retreated about twenty to twenty-five feet to get a pistol from his coat and fired four shots, killing Hermes. He was convicted of second-degree murder and appealed up to this Court.

Reasoning

The Court addressed whether the trial judge’s instruction—that a person attacked must retreat whenever retreat is open unless it would expose them to death or serious harm—was correct. The Court said that requiring retreat as a categorical rule was wrong. Instead, failure to retreat is one fact for a jury to weigh among others. If a person reasonably believes they face immediate death or grievous bodily harm, they may stand their ground and lawfully use deadly force. The Court pointed to earlier decisions and Texas law supporting that reasonable fear in the heat of conflict can justify self-defense, and held the instruction given was incorrect, so the conviction could not stand.

Real world impact

The decision affects people who use force while defending themselves in sudden attacks and the way judges instruct juries in similar trials. Juries should consider retreat as one factor, not a mandatory rule. The ruling reversed this defendant’s conviction and requires courts to allow self-defense claims when reasonable fear of imminent harm is shown.

Dissents or concurrances

Two Justices, Pitney and Clarke, dissented and would have left the conviction in place.