Charles Keitt drove two friends to the alley behind defendant Peterson's house to steal windshield wipers from Peterson's car. Peterson entered the backyard from the house. After a verbal exchange, Peterson retrieved a handgun from the house and returned to the yard. Meanwhile Keitt had returned to his car and was about to leave.
Upon returning, Peterson loaded the pistol and said "If you move, I will shoot." He walked towards the rear fence and said, "If you come in here I will kill you." Keitt left his car, took a few steps toward Peterson and said, "What the hell do you think you are going to do with that?" Keitt went to his car and retrieved a wrench. Keitt raised the wrench and advanced toward Peterson, who warned Keitt not to take another step. When Keitt continued onward, the defendant shot him, killing him instantly. …show more content…
The second jury instruction concerned the fact that at no time did Peterson attempt to retreat from Keitt's approach. The judge instructed the jury that Peterson was entitled to stand his ground and use reasonably necessary force. But, if Peterson could have safely retreated but did not do so, the jury might consider that in determining whether he went too far in his use of force.
It is settled law that one who through no fault of his own is attacked in his home has no duty to retreat. Although this doctrine’s status in the District of Columbia had not been resolved, the court found it to be inapplicable in this case. The right of self-defense can not be claimed by an aggressor. It logically follows that any rule of no-retreat would be unavailable to the party who provokes the conflict. Accordingly, the law is well settled that this doctrine can be invoked only by one who is without fault in starting the
Upon returning, Peterson loaded the pistol and said "If you move, I will shoot." He walked towards the rear fence and said, "If you come in here I will kill you." Keitt left his car, took a few steps toward Peterson and said, "What the hell do you think you are going to do with that?" Keitt went to his car and retrieved a wrench. Keitt raised the wrench and advanced toward Peterson, who warned Keitt not to take another step. When Keitt continued onward, the defendant shot him, killing him instantly. …show more content…
The second jury instruction concerned the fact that at no time did Peterson attempt to retreat from Keitt's approach. The judge instructed the jury that Peterson was entitled to stand his ground and use reasonably necessary force. But, if Peterson could have safely retreated but did not do so, the jury might consider that in determining whether he went too far in his use of force.
It is settled law that one who through no fault of his own is attacked in his home has no duty to retreat. Although this doctrine’s status in the District of Columbia had not been resolved, the court found it to be inapplicable in this case. The right of self-defense can not be claimed by an aggressor. It logically follows that any rule of no-retreat would be unavailable to the party who provokes the conflict. Accordingly, the law is well settled that this doctrine can be invoked only by one who is without fault in starting the