Self-defense

Multiple attackers

The purpose of recognizing self-defense as a complete justification to homicide is the reasonable belief in the necessity for the use of deadly force to repel an attack in order to save oneself or another from death or great bodily harm. See State v. Melendez, 97 N.M. 738, 740, 643 P.2d 607, 609 (1982) (“Self-defense is a belief by a reasonable [person] in the necessity to save himself [or herself] from death or great bodily harm.”); State v. Reneau, 111 N.M. 217, 219, 804 P.2d 408, 410 (Ct.App.1990) (“The inquiry in a self-defense claim focuses on the reasonableness of defendant's belief as to the apparent necessity for the force used to repel an attack.”). Because self-defense is defined by the objectively reasonable necessity of the action, the defense obviously does not extend to a defendant's acts of retaliation for another's involvement in a crime against him or her. See State v. Pruett, 24 N.M. 68, 73, 172 P. 1044, 1046 (1918) (affirming the trial court's use of a jury instruction containing the “familiar and oft-approved statement that the law of self-defense does not imply the right to attack, nor will it permit acts done in retaliation for revenge”); cf. State v. Duarte, 1996–NMCA–038, ¶ 8, 121 N.M. 553, 915 P.2d 309 (stating that under New Mexico law “there must have been some evidence that an objectively reasonable person, put into Defendant's subjective situation, would have thought that [the individual whom the defendant sought to protect] was threatened with death or great bodily harm, and that the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent the threatened injury ” (emphasis added)). While it is true that a person may act in self-defense against multiple attackers acting in concert, this principle applies only to the extent that each accomplice poses an immediate danger of death or great bodily harm, thereby necessitating an act of self-defense. See People v. Johnson, 112 Mich.App. 483, 316 N.W.2d 247, 249–50 (1982) (“This principle does not give a defendant carte blanche to kill anybody who is marginally associated with the alleged assailant.”). Coffin's tendered instruction would have allowed a claim of self-defense against an accomplice to an attacker despite the fact that the accomplice posed no immediate danger of death or great **487 *202 bodily harm and despite a lack of necessity for the actions against the accomplice. Therefore, Coffin's instruction is contrary to the law of New Mexico regarding self-defense, and the trial court properly denied Coffin's request to so instruct the jury.

State v. Coffin (1999) 128 N.M. 192, 201–02 [991 P.2d 477, 486–87]

We adopt the rule stated in 40 C.J.S., Homicide s 136, p. 1021, as follows: “Where accused is attacked by two or more persons, or is attacked by one person and others are acting with the assailant or are present and aiding and encouraging him, he has a right to act in self-defense against all and, in a proper case, to kill one or all. However, accused is not justified in killing one of such persons where he does not entertain a belief that he is in *487 danger of serious bodily injury or loss of life at the hands of such person.” (Footnotes omitted.)This principle does not give a defendant carte blanche to kill anybody who is marginally associated with the alleged assailant. In Norris v. State, 42 Tex.Cr.R. 559, 61 S.W. 493 (1901), the defendant was convicted of murder for shooting one of two brothers with whom he was arguing. On appeal, the conviction was affirmed. The court rejected the defendant's argument that he was entitled to an instruction that, if he reasonably believed he was in danger of death or serious bodily harm at the hands of one of the brothers, he had the right to kill either. The court in Norris stated: “If to defendant it reasonably appeared that the danger in fact existed from deceased or his brother, he had the right to defend against it to the same extent and under the same rule which would obtain in case of real danger. Defendant has a right to defend himself against real or apparent danger, as viewed from his standpoint, against either Ed or John Brewer, if acting together; and in doing so, if he thinks it is necessary, as viewed from his standpoint, to kill either Ed or John Brewer, in order to protect his own life or his person from serious bodily injury, then, in that event, he would have the right to slay either Ed or John Brewer. But the Brewers may have been acting together, yet, if appellant did not believe it was necessary to slay Ed Brewer in order to protect himself from death or serious bodily injury, the fact that Ed Brewer advised his brother John to engage **250 in the difficulty, and was present at the time of the difficulty, and was not making any demonstration to assist in the difficulty, and it so appeared to defendant, then the mere fact that Ed Brewer did advise his brother to engage in the difficulty with defendant, and was present at the time of the difficulty, would not authorize defendant to kill Ed Brewer; but the killing would be unlawful, and would *488 be murder in either the first or second degree, or manslaughter, according as the evidence might show. In other words, appellant would have no right to kill Ed Brewer because he was a brother of John, and advised John to engage in the difficulty with appellant, and was present after so advising. The above-quoted charge requested by appellant seems to imply he would have such a right, and hence the court did not err in refusing to give the same.” Id., 563-564, 61 S.W. 493.See, also, Griffin v. Commonwealth, 204 Ky. 783, 265 S.W. 327 (1924); Gordon v. State, 193 Miss. 374, 9 So.2d 877 (1942); State v. Powell, 237 Iowa 1227, 24 N.W.2d 769 (1946).

People v. Johnson (Mich. Ct. App. 1982) 112 Mich.App. 483, 486–88 [316 N.W.2d 247, 249–50]