United States v. Peterson

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia (1973)

Defendant: Peterson; the defendant saw the deceased, Keitt, and two others stealing windshield wipers from his wrecked car. The defendant went out to confront the three men and there was a verbal exchange. The defendant came back to his house and armed hiself. Just as Keitt and the other men were about to leave, the defendant went out of his house and pointed his gun at the men and ordered them not to move. Keitt came at the defendant with a lug wrench and the defendant shot and killed Keitt. The trial court found the defendant as the aggressor and the jury convicted the defendant. Now the defendant appeals and argues that he shot Keitt out of self-defense.

Issue: Shold the defense of self-defense be accepted under the given facts?

Holding: No

Legal Reasoning: The court ruled that the the intial confrontation ended when Keitt and the other men sat in their car and were about to leave. But then defendant started a new confrontation when he came out of his house with a gun and challenged Keitt. The court ruled that when a person provokes or is the intial aggressor, he can not later claim his actions to be taken under self defense. The court further stated that if a person withdraws from the original confrontation and lets his opponents know about it through words or actions, then he is no longer the aggressor. The court ruled that the defendant knew that by going out with a gun, he was going to put himself and others in great harm and his actions clearly made him the aggressor. The conviction was affirmed.

BACK