#17094 - Defense Of Property Mpc And Non Mpc - Criminal Law

• Protecting personal property

  • Can never use deadly force

  • Can use nondeadly force if reasonably believe necessary to prevent imminent dispossession of property

• Protecting home - 3 approaches

  • Traditional approach

    • Can use DF if reasonably believe necessary to prevent imminent and unlawful entry of a dwelling

    • Broad approaches that creates presumption of reasonable fear (CA, CO, CA, FL) because

      • Sanctity of the home, vulnerable place

      • Worry that response time is long and responders not effective

  • Modified approach

    • Can use DF if RB necessary to prevent imminent and unlawful entry of dwelling AND intruder intends to commit a felony or cause injury AND DF necessary to repel intrusion

  • Strict approach

    • Can use DF if RB necessary to prevent imminent and unlawful entry of dwelling AND intruder intends to commit a felony or cause injury AND DF necessary to repel intrusion AND the felony intruder intends to commit if forcible and atrocious

      • Because so many felonies today, should not read "felonies" literally but only those that are serious

    • Approach in Ceballos

No deadly mechanical devices (can't make judgment calls and use discretion like humans - Ceballos)

• Policy: high risk of wrongful killing (due to accident and indiscriminate nature of machines), first responders or law enforcement available to assist

Sydnor v. State (robbing $30, personal property)

• Maryland does not give defense, DF not necessary to avoid imminent danger/death (V was running away)

Deadly force to protect property generally not justifiable, only can be used to defend property in 2 situations (3.06)(3)(d)

1. Person is attempting to dispossess the actor of his dwelling AND intruder has no claim of right to property

OR

2. Person is attempting to commit or consummate arson, burglary, robbery, or other felonious theft or property destruction AND EITHER

   1. Has employed or threatened deadly force against or in the presence of the actor OR

   2. The use of non-deadly force to prevent the consummation or commission of the crime would expose the actor or another in his presence to substantial danger or serious bodily harm

MPC Policy:

• Concerned with subjective intent/culpability

• Appropriate in most cases because if attempted crime and threatened force > reasonable fear is probably created

• Sydnor v. State: if MPC applied, the two scenarios above would apply and give him a defense of property

No deadly mechanical devices (3.06(5))

• Policy: high risk of wrongful killing (due to accident and indiscriminate nature of machines), first responders or law enforcement available to assist

• Can use devices only if

  • 5(a) device not designed or known to create substantial risk of great bodily harm AND

  • (b) use is reasonable under circumstances as actor believes them AND

  • (c) device is one customarily used for such a purpose or reasonable care is taken to make its use known to intruders

Home – DF ok if

• [trad] Reasonably believe necess. to prevent imminent and unlawful entry of dwelling +

• [mod] intruder intends to commit felony or cause injury AND DF necessary to repel intrusion +

• [strict mod] felony intruder intends to commit is forcible and atrocious (Ceballos)

Other personal property

• Never DF (Sydnor)

• Only NF if reasonably believe necessary to prevent imminent dispossession of property

No deadly mech. devices (Ceballos)

• No judgment, risk of wrongful killing

DF not allowed unless in 2 situations (3.06)(3)(d) & believe force is immediately necessary to stop him

1. Person attmpt to dispossess actor of dwelling + has no claim of right

2. Person attmpt to commit/consummate arson, burglary, robbery, or other felon. theft or prop. destruction AND

• EITHER has employed/threatened DF against or in presence of actor

• OR use of NF to prevent crime would expose actor/another in his presence to sub’t danger or srs bodily harm

No...