Peggy Stewart (Defendant) was charged with murder in the first degree of her husband. The Butler District Court, entered verdict of not guilty. The prosecution appealed with a question reserved. The Supreme Court (5–2) held that the statutory justification for the use of deadly force in self-defense did not excuse a homicide committed by a battered wife where there was no evidence of deadly threat or imminent danger contemporaneous with killing, sustained the Appeal.

Facts

Following an annulment from her first husband and two subsequent divorces in which she was the petitioner, Peggy Stewart married Mike Stewart in 1974.

Evidence at trial disclosed a long history of abuse by Mike against Peggy and her two daughters from one of her prior marriages. Laura, one of Peggy’s daughters, testified that early in the marriage Mike hit and kicked Peggy, and that after the first year of the marriage Peggy exhibited signs of severe psychological problems. Subsequently, Peggy was hospitalized and diagnosed as having symptoms of paranoid schizophrenia;

she responded to treatment and was soon released. It appeared to Laura, however, that Mike was encouraging Peggy to take more than her prescribed dosage of medication......

1. List all the facts and circumstances relevant to deciding whether Peggy Stewart was in “imminent” danger.

2. Summarize the court majority’s arguments against imminent danger. Summarize the dissent’s arguments for imminent danger.

3. Consider the following comments:

a. Retaliation, as opposed to defense, is a common problem in cases arising from wife battering and domestic violence. The injured wife waits for the first possibility of striking against a distracted or unarmed husband. The man may even be asleep when the wife finally reacts.

b. Retaliation is the standard case of “taking the law into your own hands.” There is no way, under the law, to justify killing a wife batterer or a rapist in retaliation or revenge, however much sympathy there may be for the wife wreaking retaliation. Private citizens cannot act as judge and jury toward each other. They have no authority to pass judgment and to punish each other for past wrongs (Fletcher 1988, 21–22).

c. “The right to use force in the defense of one’s person, family, habitation, lands, or goods is one of the unalienable rights of man. As it is a right not granted by any human code, no human code can take it away. It was recognized by the Roman law, declared by that law to be a natural right, and part of the law of nations. It is no doubt recognized by the code of every civilized State” (Thompson 1880, 546).

d. “A man is not born to run away. The law must consider human nature and make some allowance for the fighting instinct at critical moments. In Texas it is well settled, as you might imagine, that a man is not born to run away” (DeWolfe Howe 1953, 1:331). Are any of the statements relevant to battered woman domestic violence cases? Do you agree with the statements? Explain your answer.

4. In your opinion, did Peggy Stewart kill Mike Stewart in self-defense? As a preemptive strike? Or as retaliation? Or something else? Defend your answer.