KARLA LOUISE PORTER v. STATE OF MARYLAND
Court of Special Appeals, Kehoe, Oct. 25, 2016,
Imperfect Self Defense – An imperfect self-defense instruction is not appropriate in a murder-for-hire case where there was no evidence suggesting belief of imminent or immediate danger of death or serious bodily injury at the time of the murder.
Reversed by CoA with regard to the jury instruction. The Miranda issue was not considered by the CoA.
Dissent – Friedman – A defendant’s statement that they were acting in self-defense is sufficient alone to generate a self-defense instruction, so one should have been given.
Facts: William Porter was shot and killed in 2010 at a Hess Gas Station in Baltimore County that he owned along with his wife. Investigation revealed that his wife had been trying to hire someone to kill him and finally found someone, provided him with a handgun, and set up her husband by sending him to the gas station to be executed. At trial, Karla Porter (“Porter”) testified that her husband had abused her for years and asserted “battered spouse syndrome” in a claim of self-defense.
Battered Spouse Syndrome – CJP 10-916 defines “Battered Spouse Syndrome” as the psychological condition of a victim of repeated physical and psychological abuse by a spouse, former spouse, cohabitant, or former cohabitant recognized in the medical and scientific community as the “Battered Woman’s Syndrome”. Despite the name, “, applies as well to battered children.”
Battered Spouse Syndrome- CJP 10-916 allows a defendant who was suffering from Battered Spouse Syndrome at the time of the offense to present evidence of prior abuse by the victim as well as expert testimony on Battered Spouse Syndrome.
Battered Spouse Syndrome – May be asserted in a trial for murder or manslaughter (including attempt) as well as assault in the first degree.
Battered Spouse Syndrome – Is NOT a defense itself. It allows the judge/jury to hear evidence relating to self-defense.
Self-Defense – Divided into two types: perfect and imperfect
Perfect Self-Defense – Is a complete defense to murder or manslaughter and requires that the suspect:
(1) had reasonable grounds to believe himself in imminent or immediate danger of death or serious bodily harm from his potential assailant
(2) in fact believed himself in this danger
(3) was not the aggressor or did not provoke the conflict; and
(4) did not use unreasonable and excessive force. That is, the force must not have been more force than the exigency demanded.
Imperfect Self-Defense – Is not a complete defense, but will reduce murder to manslaughter. It is similar to perfect self-defense, except either:
the belief that they were in imminent or immediate danger was not reasonable
or the force used was excessive/unreasonable
Miranda – Suspect’s statement, “I guess I need to speak to an attorney then, right? I just, I don’t know what else to say or do” was not an unequivocal statement sufficient to trigger Miranda protections and end questioning.
Compare with statements held to be ambiguous: “Maybe I should talk to a lawyer” “Should I get a lawyer?”
And held to be unambiguous invocation of Miranda rights: ““You mind if I not say no more and just talk to an attorney about this?”