California Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

In the case of People vs. Sheehan, Barbara Sheehan was recently found not guilty in the shooting death of her husband, which happened two and a half years earlier in their home. The Battered Woman's Defense was offered as the defense to the second degree murder charge, stemming from years of domestic abuse inflicted upon Sheehan by her husband. As an experienced Orange County Criminal Defense Attorney, it is important to understand the difference between self-defense, where a person is in imminent danger of a lethal assault and domestic violence where there is a history of physical abuse and threats. It is also important to be aware that this defense can apply to both males and females.

There are a small number of situations where self-defense can be argued as justification for using violence to protect ones self. A common requirement for this defense is that a lethal assault is "imminent" to justify a victim in killing another person and it's relation to the "duty to retreat". These two concepts limit a person's right to use deadly force in self-defense. An example of "imminent" danger would be where an intruder enters your home with a weapon drawn. The option of calling the police and risking the police not arriving in time would place the homeowner in grave danger. Therefore, the homeowner may use lethal force in order to defend himself and any other innocent people sharing the home. On the other hand, the "duty to retreat" might apply in a situation outside of the home where a person could avoid getting hurt or killed by leaving the scene.

Domestic violence differs in important ways from the self-defense explanations described above. Domestic violence often involves a victim who lives in the same home as her attacker and thus the attacker is not an intruder and also, domestic violence is usually an ongoing situation, not a one-time situation that someone can get away from. Thus, women who kill their batterers to defend their own lives do not act in ways that follow the typical self-defense rule.

In People vs. Sheehan, Mrs. Sheehan testified that she had endured years of domestic violence, including her husband throwing scalding pasta sauce at her and bashing her in the head with a telephone when she tried to call 9-1-1. She further testified that on one occasion, while on vacation in Jamaica, her husband slammed her head into the stone wall of the hotel repeatedly and she ended up in the hospital. Leading up to her husband's death, Barbara Sheehan testified that she had told her husband that she would not be going on vacation to Florida with him. He became progressively more violent and menacing and ultimately pointed a gun at her and threatened to kill her. On the day that Barbara Sheehan killed her husband, he had pointed the gun at her and told her he was going to kill her but didn't pull the trigger. At that point, Barbara Sheehan went and got one of her husband's guns and went to the bathroom where he was shaving, with his gun sitting next to him on the counter, and shot him.

On the issue of "imminence", as it applies to this case, Mrs. Sheehan felt the need to act in advance of a direct threat to her life, rather than waiting for the threat to become imminent. However, does this violate her duty to retreat to safety? In reality, women who leave a violent relationship can actually trigger more violence and statistically, are more likely to be killed. The legal system is not well designed to protect an individual from an ongoing and escalating threat directed specifically at them.

The reason to require imminence in these types of situations is to ensure that violence against the assailant is necessary to protect your own life and "retreat" serves the same purpose. If you can safety retreat from an assailant, you should do so.

In the Barbara Sheehan is was made clear to the jury that there was no where she could retreat to where her husband wouldn't find her and further that she knew and was sure that he would kill her, if she hadn't killed him first. Thus the "Not Guilty" verdict.

Continue reading " The Battered Woman's Defense " »

In the wake of the recent Seal Beach, California shootings, the cry for gun control is again surfacing. According to reports, a man walked into a hair salon carrying 3 guns, using at least two of them to shoot and kill 8 people. It is not yet know whether or not the man possessed the guns legally, but what appears to be obvious is that there are no guns laws that could have prevented this man from killing these people.

The Second Amendment to the US Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a firearm and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Clearly this is not the case in the Seal Beach shootings. Additionally, there are longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession.

The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act is an Act of the United States Congress that instituted federal background checks on firearm purchases in the United States. The Brady Act requires that background checks be conducted on individuals before a firearm may be purchased from a federally licensed dealer, manufacture or importer, unless an exception applies. Further, under the Brady Act, you cannot have a gun for personal or business if you:

1. Were convicted of a crime punishable by being in prison for more than one year;
2. Are a fugitive from justice;
3. Are addicted to, or legally use, any controlled substance;
4. Have been ruled mentally defective by a court, or are committed to a mental institution;
5. Are an illegal alien living in the United States unlawfully;
6. Received a dishonorable discharge from the U.S. Armed Forces;
7. Renounced your U.S. citizenship, if you are a U.S. citizen;
8. Are subject to a court restraining order that involves your "intimate partner," your partner's child, or children; or
9. Were convicted of domestic violence in any court of a misdemeanor.

State gun laws vary considerably from state to state. California gun laws allow almost anyone to buy a firearm without a license. The only people generally prohibited are felons, persons convicted of certain misdemeanor offenses, persons addicted to narcotics, persons who suffer from mental illness and minors. Therefore, in California if you don't fall into one of these categories, there are ways to exercise your Second Amendment right to bear arms.

As an Orange County Criminal Defense Attorney, I am a strong believer in the Constitution of the United States and in protecting the rights of individuals. The "right to carry" laws are federal and state constitutional rights. The law has common sense protections, and as a qualified attorney, who is knowledgeable in the field of criminal defense, can help classify the exceptions for someone being charged with possession of firearms.

Continue reading " California Gun Laws " »

In People vs. Deiran Green, defendant was indicted for malice murder, felony murder, aggravated assault, and possession of a knife during the commission of a felony after he punctured the femoral nerve of Jeffrey Waldon with a knife during a physical struggle between the two men. As an aggressive Orange County Criminal Defense Attorney, protecting all rights under the law is the first priority and this case is a good example of experienced, aggressive criminal defense law. Green filed a motion to dismiss the indictment on the grounds that he was immune from prosecution under the self-defense laws.

The Trial court found that Green, who rented a room from Waldon and his wife, was in the kitchen talking to Waldon's wife while he prepared dinner, using a butcher knife. Waldon came into the kitchen and became angry that Waldon was talking to his wife and ordered him to leave and told him he would refund his pre-paid rent money. Waldon then left the kitchen and walked to his bedroom. Green waited near the bedroom, still holding the butcher knife, and requested his refund. At this point, Waldon grabbed Green's wrists and head-butted Green in the face at which time the knife entered Waldon's leg, puncturing his femoral nerve.

The Court determined that Green never attempted to stab or injure Waldon; that he had taken the knife with him because he didn't trust Waldon and further that Green told Waldon he wasn't going to hurt him, that he just wanted his rent money. The trial court granted Green's motion finding that Waldon had assaulted Green, reasonably putting Green in fear for his life.

The State appealed the trial court's decision stating that there was no justification for the self-defense defense because the use of force is a necessary prerequisite and that there was no evidence that Green used force against Waldon. However, the appellate court confirmed the trial court's findings, stating that defendant would have been justified in using deadly force against Waldon to protect himself, although he was not required to do so in order to be immune from prosecution.

Self-defense is a legal defense that excuses conduct, which would otherwise be criminal. However, California self-defense laws are very specific and do not apply to all situations. The following are conditions that must be met in order to justify self-defense:

1. A reasonable belief that you are in imminent danger of being killed, seriously injured, or unlawfully touched.

2. A belief that immediate force is necessary to prevent that danger, and

3. That you use no more force than is necessary to defend yourself against that danger.

The true meaning of self-defense isn’t perfectly clear, but when asserted properly by an experienced criminal defense attorney, becomes a legal defense that can result in immunity against prosecution.

Continue reading " Murder Indictment Dismissed By Motion That Defendant Acted In Self-Defense " »