At 03:53 PM 8/8/2001 -0700, Black Unicorn wrote:
>From: "Sandy Sandfort" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > [...] In California, there is the presumption
> > that anyone in your house (at least after dark, though I'd have to research
> > that) is there with the intent of causing death or great bodily harm. He
> > doesn't have to do anything overt like raise a crowbar. So you can just
> > shoot first and ask questions later.
>
>I didn't realize any states but Virginia still held this old "burglary"
>definition. Are you certain that's current law?
Not quite current - the cite you guys need is CA Penal Code 198.5, which
says that a person who uses deadly force, within their residence, against
another person, shall be presumed to have held a reasonable fear of
imminent peril of death of great bodily injury (and hence has a defense to
a homicide charge) if -
1. The intruder is not a member of the family or household; and
2. The intruder is entering, or has entered forcefully and unlawfully; and
3. The defender knew of the forceful and unlawful entry
.. but CA appellate courts have been quick to uphold convictions for
borderline cases, as in _State v. Brown_ 6 Cal App 4th. 1489 (3rd Dist,
1992), where entry by a hammer-wielding man onto an unenclosed front porch,
where only an unlocked screen door stood between the intruder and the
defender, was not considered entry into a "residence" for purposes of
198.5, and the defender was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon for
shooting the hammer-wielder.
Generally, people interested in the topic of self-defense under California
law would do well to read Penal Code sections 197-200, and the cases
interpreting those statutes.
