United States v. Peterson

Facts

Charles Keitt and two friends drove to the alley behind Bennie Peterson's house to take the windshield wipers off Peterson's wrecked car. Peterson came out into his back yard to protest. After a verbal exchange, he went back inside, got a pistol and returned to the yard. By then Keitt had reseated himself in his car, and he and his companions were about to leave. Peterson paused to load the pistol and told Keitt not to move. He walked to a point just inside a gate in the rear fence and, pistol in hand, threatened to kill Keitt if he came in. Keitt got out, took a few steps, turned back, got a lug wrench from his car and advanced on Peterson with the wrench raised. Peterson warned him not to take another step and, when Keitt kept coming, shot him in the face from about ten feet. Death was apparently instantaneous. Peterson left home and was caught 20-odd blocks away. Four Government witnesses described the shooting this way. Peterson did not testify, but the Government introduced his statement to the police. He said Keitt went for the wrench before he went for his pistol, that he got scared and fired, and that Keitt ran into the bullet.

Issues

1. Did the trial judge err in instructing the jury that it could consider whether Peterson was the aggressor, when he claimed self-defense in shooting Keitt?
2. Did the judge err in instructing the jury that Peterson's failure to retreat, if he could have done so safely, could be considered in judging whether his force was justified, even though he stood in his own yard?
3. Did the judge commit reversible error by refusing three voir dire questions Peterson requested about the indictment, the death and fear of firearms?
4. Was the evidence legally sufficient to support the manslaughter conviction despite Peterson's self-defense claim?

Holding

The evidence raised a jury question whether Peterson's armed challenge provoked the fatal encounter, so the aggressor instruction was proper. Because Peterson was not blameless, he could not rely on the castle doctrine, and the instruction letting the jury weigh his failure to retreat safely was not error. The voir dire refusals caused no prejudice, the evidence was sufficient, and the conviction was affirmed.