Abbott got into an argument
with his neighbors (the Scaranos) about repaving a driveway. At first,
the fight was between Abbott and one Scarano, but then two other Scaranos
joined in.
There was some disagreement
about what exactly happened, but there was a hatchet, carving knife, and a
large fork involved. Three members of the Scarano family ended up in the
hospital with hatchet wounds.
Abbott claimed that the
Scaranos were the aggressors (they brought the hatchet), and that his
actions were justified as self-defense.
The Trial Court found Abbott
guilty of assault and battery
against the first Scaranos, but innocent of assaulting the other two. He
appealed.
The Trial Court found that
Abbott's actions against the other two were justified as self-defense.
However, the Court found
that Abbott was not justified in wounding the first Scarano because he
could have retreated.
The New Jersey Supreme Court
reversed.
The New Jersey Supreme Court
looked to the Model Penal Code §3.40(2)(b)(ii) and found that the issue of retreat
only arises if the defendant resorts to deadly force. In this case
Abbott only wounded his attackers.
The Court also found that §3.40(2)(b)(ii) says that retreat is only
required when the defendant has knowledge that he can avoid using force with complete safety by
retreating.
In this case, it was
reasonable for Abbott to believe that if he tried to flee, his attackers
would come after him (they knew where he lived), and so retreat was not
really an option.
Under the old English
common-law, self-defense was only
justified if there was no option to retreat. You literally had to have your back up against
the wall.
However America
jurisprudence significantly lowered the requirement to retreat because "American values" prevented
the law from requiring what amounted to cowardice.
The no retreat rule is
sometimes known as the True Man Doctrine.
