Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: AB69 - How 939.48 would read now.

  1. #1
    Regular Member BROKENSPROKET's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Trempealeau County
    Posts
    2,187

    AB69 - How 939.48 would read now.

    I just thought I would post this. When I study statutes and bills, I usually drop them in WORD and touch up the formatting. It just makes it easier for me.

    The following posts reflect the changes made by AB69 as it passed committee.


    *indents wouldn't copy over, so I used dashes in indicate indents.

    *There is the statutory definition for "dwelling" added at the bottom.
    Last edited by BROKENSPROKET; 10-02-2011 at 06:33 AM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member BROKENSPROKET's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Trempealeau County
    Posts
    2,187
    CHAPTER 939
    CRIMES — GENERAL PROVISIONS

    SUBCHAPTER III
    DEFENSES TO CRIMINAL LIABILITY


    939.48 Self−defense and defense of others.
    -
    (1) A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.
    -(1m) (a) In this subsection:
    -1. “Dwelling” has the meaning given in s. 895.07 (1) (h).
    -2. “Place of business” means a business that the actor owns or operates.
    -(ar) If an actor intentionally used force that was intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm, the court may not consider whether the actor had an opportunity to flee or retreat before he or she used force and shall presume that the actor reasonably believed that the force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself if the actor makes such a claim under sub. (1) and either of the following applies:
    -1. The person against whom the force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering the actor’s dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, the actor was present in the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew or reasonably believed that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring.
    -2. The person against whom the force was used was in the actor’s dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business after unlawfully and forcibly entering it, the actor was present in the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew or reasonably believed that the person had unlawfully and forcibly entered the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business.
    -(b) The presumption described in par. (ar) does not apply if any of the following applies:
    -1. The actor was engaged in a criminal activity or was using his or her dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business to further a criminal activity at the time.
    -2. The person against whom the force was used was a peace officer who entered or attempted to enter the actor’s dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business in the performance of his or her official duties. This subdivision applies only if at least one of the following applies:
    -a. The officer identified himself or herself to the actor before the force described in par. (ar) was used by the actor.
    -b. The actor knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter his or her dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business was a peace officer.
    -(2) Provocation affects the privilege of self−defense as follows:
    -(a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self−defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self−defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person’s assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.
    -(b) The privilege lost by provocation may be regained if the actor in good faith withdraws from the fight and gives adequate notice thereof to his or her assailant.
    -(c) A person who provokes an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self−defense.
    -(3) The privilege of self−defense extends not only to the intentional infliction of harm upon a real or apparent wrongdoer, but also to the unintended infliction of harm upon a 3rd person, except that if the unintended infliction of harm amounts to the crime of first−degree or 2nd−degree reckless homicide, homicide by negligent handling of dangerous weapon, explosives or fire, first− degree or 2nd−degree reckless injury or injury by negligent handling of dangerous weapon, explosives or fire, the actor is liable for whichever one of those crimes is committed.
    -(4) A person is privileged to defend a 3rd person from real or apparent unlawful interference by another under the same conditions and by the same means as those under and by which the person is privileged to defend himself or herself from real or apparent unlawful interference, provided that the person reasonably believes that the facts are such that the 3rd person would be privileged to act in self−defense and that the person’s intervention is necessary for the protection of the 3rd person.
    -(5) A person is privileged to use force against another if the person reasonably believes that to use such force is necessary to prevent such person from committing suicide, but this privilege does not extend to the intentional use of force intended or likely to cause death.
    -(6) In this section “unlawful” means either tortious or expressly prohibited by criminal law or both.

    History: 1987 a. 399; 1993 a. 486; 2005 a. 253.
    Judicial Council Note, 1988:
    -
    Sub. (3) is amended by conforming references to the statute titles as affected by this bill. [Bill 191−S]
    -When a defendant testified that he did not intend to shoot or use force, he could not claim self−defense. Cleghorn v. State, 55 Wis. 2d 466, 198 N.W.2d 577 (1972).

    -Sub. (2) (b) is inapplicable to a defendant if the nature of the initial provocation is a gun−in−hand confrontation of an intended victim by a self−identified robber. Under these circumstances the intended victim is justified in the use of force in the exercise of the right of self−defense. Ruff v. State, 65 Wis. 2d 713, 223 N.W.2d 446 (1974).

    Whether a defendant’s belief was reasonable under subs. (1) and (4) depends, in part, upon the parties’ personal characteristics and histories and whether events were continuous. State v. Jones, 147 Wis. 2d 806, 434 N.W.2d 380 (1989).

    -Evidence of prior specific instances of violence that were known to the accused may be presented to support a defense of self−defense. The evidence is not limited to the accused’s own testimony, but the evidence may not be extended to the point that it is being offered to prove that the victim acted in conformity with his or her violent tendencies. State v. Daniels, 160 Wis. 2d 85, 465 N.W.2d 633 (1991).

    -Imperfect self−defense contains an initial threshold element requiring a reasonable belief that the defendant was terminating an unlawful interference with his or her person. State v. Camacho, 176 Wis. 2d 860, 501 N.W.2d 380 (1993).

    -The reasonableness of a person’s belief under sub. (1) is judged from the position of a person of ordinary intelligence and prudence in the same situation as the defendant, not a person identical to the defendant placed in the same situation as the defendant. A defendant’s psycho−social history showing past violence toward the defendant is generally not relevant to this objective standard, although it may be relevant, as in spousal abuse cases, where the actors are the homicide victim and defendant. State v. Hampton, 207 Wis. 2d 369, 558 N.W.2d 884 (Ct. App. 1996).

    -The right to resist unlawful arrest is not part of the statutory right to self−defense. It is a common law privilege that is abrogated. State v. Hobson, 218 Wis. 2d 350, 577 N.W.2d 825 (1998), 96−0914.

    -While there is no statutory duty to retreat, whether the opportunity to retreat was available goes to whether the defendant reasonably believed the force used was necessary to prevent an interference with his or her person. A jury instruction to that effect was proper. State v. Wenger, 225 Wis. 2d 495, 593 N.W.2d 467 (Ct. App. 1999), 98−1739.

    -When a defendant fails to establish a factual basis to raise self−defense, prior specific acts of violence by the victim have no probative value. The presentation of subjective testimony by an accused, going to a belief that taking steps in self−defense was necessary, is not sufficient for the admission of self−defense evidence. State v. Head, 2000 WI App 275, 240 Wis. 2d 162, 622 N.W.2d 9, 99−3071.

    -Although intentionally pointing a firearm at another constitutes a violation of s. 941.20, under sub. (1) a person is privileged to point a gun at another person in self−defense if the person reasonably believes that the threat of force is necessary to prevent or terminate what he or she reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference. State v. Watkins, 2002 WI 101, 255 Wis. 2d 265, 647 N.W.2d 244, 00−0064.

    -A defendant asserting perfect self−defense against a charge of 1st−degree murder must meet an objective threshold showing that he or she reasonably believed that he or she was preventing or terminating an unlawful interference with his or her person and that the force used was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm. A defendant asserting the defense of unnecessary defensive force s. 940.01 (2) (b) to a charge of 1st−degree murder is not required to satisfy the objective threshold showing. State v. Head, 2002 WI 99, 255 Wis. 2d 194, 648 N.W.2d 413, 99−3071.

    -A person may employ deadly force against another, if the person reasonably believes that force is necessary to protect a 3rd−person or one’s self from imminent death or great bodily harm, without incurring civil liability for injury to the other. Clark v. Ziedonis, 513 F. 2d 79 (1975).

    -Self−defense — prior acts of the victim. 1974 WLR 266.

    -State v. Camacho:
    The Judicial Creation of an Objective Element to Wisconsin’s Law of Imperfect Self−defense Homicide. Leiser. 1995 WLR 742.


    895.07(1)(h) “Dwelling” means any premises or portion of a premises that is used as a home or a place of residence and that part of the lot or site on which the dwelling is situated that is devoted to residential use. “Dwelling” includes other existing structures on the immediate residential premises such as driveways, sidewalks, swimming pools, terraces, patios, fences, porches, garages, and basements.

  3. #3
    Regular Member BROKENSPROKET's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Trempealeau County
    Posts
    2,187
    CHAPTER 895
    DAMAGES, LIABILITY, AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
    REGARDING ACTIONS IN COURTS

    SUBCHAPTER II
    EXEMPTIONS FROM, AND LIMITATIONS ON, LIABILITY

    895.62 Use of force in response to unlawful and forcible entry into a dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business; civil liability immunity.
    -(1) In this section:
    -(a) “Actor” means a person who uses force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another person.
    -(b) “Dwelling” has the meaning given in s. 895.07 (1) (h).
    -(c) “Place of business” means a business that the actor owns or operates.
    -(2) Except as provided in sub. (4), an actor is immune from civil liability arising out of his or her use of force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm if the actor reasonably believed that the force was necessary to prevent imminent death or bodily harm to himself or herself or to another person and either of the following applies:
    -(a) The person against whom the force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering the actor’s dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, the actor was on his or her property or present in the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring.
    -(b) The person against whom the force was used was in the actor’s dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business after unlawfully and forcibly entering it, the actor was present in the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew or had reason to believe that the person had unlawfully and forcibly entered the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business.
    -(3) If sub. (2) (a) or (b) applies, the finder of fact may not consider whether the actor had an opportunity to flee or retreat before he or she used force and the actor is presumed to have reasonably believed that the force was necessary to prevent imminent death or bodily harm to himself or herself or to another person.
    -(4) The presumption described in sub. (3) does not apply if any of the following are true:
    -(a) The actor was engaged in a criminal activity or was using his or her dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business to further a criminal activity at the time he or she used the force described in sub. (2).
    -(b) The person against whom the force was used was a peace officer who entered or attempted to enter the actor’s dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business in the performance of his or her official duties. This paragraph applies only if at least one of the following applies:
    -1. The officer identified himself or herself to the actor before the force described in sub. (2) was used by the actor.
    -2. The actor knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter his or her dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business was a peace officer.
    -(5) In any civil action, if a court finds that a person is immune from civil liability under sub. (2), the court shall award the person reasonable attorney fees, costs, compensation for loss of income, and other costs of the litigation reasonably incurred by the person.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •