rejecting notion that deadly force requires a resulting death and holding that “deadly force has been used where the defendant’s acts are such that the natural, probable, and foreseeable consequence of said acts is death.”
How later courts described this case
- rejecting notion that deadly force requires a resulting death and holding that “deadly force has been used where the defendant’s acts are such that the natural, probable, and foreseeable consequence of said acts is death.”
- noting that “[m]erely displaying” a weapon “implies a threat of violence” and that “[a] felonious assault conviction can be sustained without proof of the use of or attempt to utilize any force at all”
- the right of a defendant to claim self-defense is greatly restricted when the defendant has used deadly force
- “[D]eadly force has been used where the defendant’s acts are such that the natural, probable, and foreseeable consequence of said acts is death.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Cynar, J.
(concurring). I am in accord with my colleagues’ decision to reverse and remand this cause for the reasons indicated. However, I feel compelled to further comment on the failure to disclose prior statements in violation of the discovery order.
The people, under the discovery order, had a continuing duty to disclose the statements in question. Not only was there a failure to comply with the discovery order, but there was a failure to inform or to offer an explanation to the trial court, in the absence of the jury, for such noncompliance before proceeding with the cross-examination of the defendant concerning the statements in question. Had this been done before the learned and experienced trial judge, the trial record might have been further developed, as well as better protected, and possibly a retrial of the matter could have been avoided.