MARQUISE HOLT v. STATE OF MARYLAND
Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, Kenney, April 5, 2018,
Imperfect Self-Defense – A defendant is not entitled to a self-defense instruction when he goes out looking to fight another group and then fires at the other group as they approach
It has been noted that “[f]or most purposes, UTC is considered interchangeable with Greenwich Mean Time (GMT).” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coordinated_Universal_Time
DON’T
CITE
WIKIPEDIA
Is there truly no other reference in the world that you could have cited for the proposition that UTC = GMT? Does that even NEED a reference?
Also… how is shooting at a group coming after you with a knife and baseball bat not sufficient evidence of state-of-mind to put forth a self-defense instruction? I understand the aggressor part. Cool there. But not “some evidence” with regard to subjective belief of imminent danger?
Facts:
In 2016, Holt and his friends had a violent encounter with another group while in Cumberland, MD. During that altercation, a member of the other group pulled out a gun. The man with the gun was punched and the other group retreated.
Later that evening, the two groups approached to fight once again. The other group, six people wielding at least a knife and baseball bat among them, jumped a fence and approached Holt’s group. As they neared, Holt and another member of his group pulled out guns and started firing at the other group. Nobody was struck.
Holt was eventually charged with attempted murder and related charges.
Prior to trial, Holt’s attorney filed a motion to withdraw his appearance and attached a letter from Holt requested to fire him.
After the Public Defender made some statements regarding the character of Holt’s attorney, the matter was set back in for Holt’s attorney to appear. At that appearance, Holt’s attorney informed the court that Holt no longer wanted him to withdraw and that he would be representing Holt at trial.
At the end of trial, Holt requested that the jury be given instruction on partial (otherwise known as “imperfect”) self-defense. The trial judge denied this, however.
Holt was convicted and appealed, arguing that the trial judge should have spoken to him directly about whether you wanted to fire his lawyer and that the trial judge should have given the jury instructions about self defense.
Held: The Court of Special Appeals affirmed Holt’s conviction, finding that Holt’s attorney was acting on Holt’s behalf in informing the court that the request was withdrawn and that there wasn’t enough evidence to support Holt’s claim of self defense.
Self-Defense – Self-defense claims are divided into two types: complete and partial (formerly known as “perfect” and “imperfect”)
Homicide- Complete Self-Defense – “Perfect” (or “complete”) self-defense is a complete defense to murder or manslaughter. If the defendant shows that he acted in perfect self-defense, he cannot be found guilty.
Homicide- Complete Self-Defense- A perfect (or “complete”) self-defense claim requires proof that the individual:
(1) Had reason to think he was in either imminent or immediate danger of death or serious bodily harm from his potential assailant
(2) In fact believed he was in this danger
(3) Was not the aggressor and did not provoke the conflict; and
(4) Used no more force than called for under the circumstances
Note: While referred to as “perfect” self-defense, the standard is reasonableness and not actual perfection
Homicide – Imperfect Self-Defense – Imperfect self-defense is not a complete defense, but it does show that there was no malice in the killing. Therefore it will reduce murder to manslaughter.
Homicide- Incomplete Self-Defense – “Imperfect” (or “incomplete”) requires proof that the individual:
(1) In fact believed he was in this danger
(2) Was not the aggressor and did not provoke the conflict; and
(3) Used no more force than called for under the facts as he believed them
Note: The difference here is that the suspect’s belief does not have to be reasonable as long as it was honestly held
From the Case: “Here, there were witnesses to the encounter during which the shots were fired, but there is no evidence on the record from any source that appellant subjectively believed he was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm” when shots were fired at the other group.
Homicide- Incomplete Self-Defense – An aggressor or mutual combatant cannot claim imperfect self-defense
Homicide – Self-Defense – Arming yourself in anticipation of an attack is not “aggression.” Going out and seeking a fight, however, is (regardless of whether it is mutual or one-sided).
From the Case: Even assuming that Holt “had a subjective belief that he was in danger, and that was why he brought a weapon to the evening encounter, he was not entitled to” an instruction on imperfect self defense because “the fight did not come to Holt; Holt went to the fight” (cleaned up).
Discharge of Counsel – When a defendant requests discharge of counsel, the Court of Appeals requires strict compliance with Rule 4-215(e):
1) Allow the defendant to explain the reason
2) Determine whether there is good cause to discharge counsel
3) Advise the defendant and take action as required
Discharge of Counsel – Rule 4-215 is triggered by any statement that would “reasonably apprise a court of defendant’s wish to discharge counsel” regardless of whether it came from the defendant or from defense counsel.
From the Case: Because Holt’s attorney informed the court that Holt had changed his mind and no longer wanted to fire him, that was sufficient reason for the court not to hold a Rule 4-215 hearing.