## Facts

- Ralph Alexander and fellow inmate Bruce Shreeves were charged with assaulting correctional officer Dale Tscheulin at the Maryland Penitentiary.
- The State’s witnesses testified Shreeves attacked Tscheulin first and Alexander then joined the assault by striking Tscheulin during efforts to subdue Shreeves.
- Defense witnesses testified another officer grabbed Shreeves without provocation; Tscheulin then began hitting Shreeves; Alexander approached and told Tscheulin to stop.
- Alexander claimed Tscheulin struck him; Alexander said he pinned Tscheulin against cell bars to protect himself, did not strike him, and returned to his cell.
- At trial, Alexander asserted self-defense and defense of others (intervening to protect Shreeves).
- The trial court instructed the jury that Alexander’s right to defend Shreeves depended entirely on whether Shreeves actually had a legal right of self-defense (“same shoes” instruction).
- Alexander and Shreeves were convicted of assault in the Criminal Court of Baltimore.

## Issues

1. Whether Maryland law allows a defense-of-others justification based on the intervenor’s reasonable belief that another is being unlawfully assaulted, even if the person aided lacked an actual legal right of self-defense.
2. Whether a jury instruction that makes the intervenor’s justification strictly coextensive with the aided person’s actual self-defense right is erroneous and reversible.

## Decision

- The Maryland Court of Special Appeals reversed Alexander’s conviction and remanded for a new trial.
- The court held the “same shoes” (alter-ego) instruction misstated Maryland law on defense of others.
- The court concluded the erroneous instruction improperly constrained the jury’s consideration of Alexander’s defense-of-others theory and required a new trial.

## Legal Principles

- Defense of others in Maryland is assessed by the intervenor’s reasonable belief about the circumstances confronting the apparent victim.
- An intervenor may be justified in using force to protect another if the intervenor reasonably believes the other person is the victim of a violent assault, even if that belief later proves mistaken.
- The intervenor’s justification is not automatically defeated because the person aided was actually the initial aggressor or otherwise lacked an actual legal entitlement to self-defense.
- Jury instructions must permit the jury to evaluate defense of others under a reasonable-belief standard rather than tying it mechanically to the defended person’s actual self-defense rights.

## Conclusion

Because the jury was instructed that Alexander could defend Shreeves only if Shreeves actually had a right of self-defense, the conviction was reversed and the case remanded for a new trial with correct instructions focusing on Alexander’s reasonable belief when intervening.


Alexander v. State, 52 Md. App. 171, 447 A.2d 880 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1982)