Summary of State v. Realina, Intermed. Ct. of App. HA, 1980

Self Defense

Relevant Facts: The husband of df’s lover found df at his home and threatened him. Then the husband called him twice and made more threats.  Df reported these threats to the police.  While driving the husband followed df.  Df noticed the husband and headed for a police station.  He stopped in the parking lot.  The husband was outside of df’s car repeating his threats.  When df attempted to leave by starting his car, the husband reached inside and grabbed df by the shirt.  Df turned the car off and the husband let go of the shirt.  Df reach down and grabbed a cane knife and approached the husband. The husband then fled to the police station where the df was apprehended.

Legal Issue(s): Whether the use of a weapon, capable of SBI, is justified when the df believes it is necessary to protect himself from injury or harm?

Court’s Holding: Yes

Procedure: Trial ct. conviction for terroristic threatening.  Reversed.

Law or Rule(s): The use of force toward another person is justifiable when the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself against the use of unlawful force, death, SBI, or kidnaping.

Court Rationale: When force and the threat of force is the essence of terroristic threatening it follows that the authorization to use force or deadly force may be available in a justification defense to a charge of terroristic threatening.  The cane knife could have caused SBI, but df’s use of it for that end is uncertain.  The use of deadly force was justifiable if df believed it necessary to protect himself against kidnaping.  The husband committed the offense of kidnaping before df reached for the knife.

Plaintiff’s Argument: df’s actions were lawful until some point between the car and the station as the threat of harm evaporated.

Defendant’s Argument: The use of non deadly force or deadly force was required to insure no further harm or threatened harm continued against the df by the husband.