The Kansas Supreme Court is coming under some criticism for an odd decision they issued last Friday in the case of State v. Hendrix. Hendrix argued with his sister and was charged with the crimes of criminal threat and aggravated assault. His request for a self-defense jury instruction was denied because Hendrix did not demonstrate a reasonable belief that his actions were necessary to defend himself against his sister's use of imminent force. He was convicted and upon appeal, the Supreme Court upheld his conviction even though they noted the absurdity in denying self-defense to a defendant who can diffuse a situation with the mere threat of force but granting the defense to one who actually applies force. Instapundit (Univ. of Tennessee law professor Glenn Reynolds) links to a critique of the decision from UCLA law professor, Eugene Volokh, who notes it may be legal to kill an attacker, but not to threaten him.
Chief Justice Robert E. Davis, joined by Justice Marla J. Lukert, dissented from the decision, saying that “force” should reasonably be read to include “constructive force” such as threats.
No comments:
Post a Comment