## Facts

- Mildred E. Emmons lived in a second-floor apartment in Upper Darby, Pennsylvania; her car was parked outside behind the building on an unopened street.
- Emmons had obtained the car under a bailment lease and was in default; a finance company authorized agents to repossess it.
- Two finance company representatives went to her apartment, received no response, then moved the car into the street and opened the hood to check the serial number.
- From her apartment, Emmons fired a rifle toward the men; the shot struck one representative, Edward Gray, in the leg and seriously injured him.
- Emmons told police she believed the men were stealing her car and claimed she fired to scare them, not to hit anyone.
- Emmons was indicted for assault and battery with intent to murder, aggravated assault and battery, and simple assault and battery; the jury convicted her of aggravated assault and battery.

## Issues

1. Whether a defendant is legally justified in using deadly force to stop an apparent theft of her automobile parked outside when there is no immediate threat to her person or dwelling.
2. Whether a good-faith and apparently reasonable belief that a theft is occurring can justify firing a rifle toward suspected thieves under these circumstances.
3. Whether the evidence supported a conviction for aggravated assault and battery where the defendant intentionally discharged a firearm toward people and caused serious bodily injury.

## Decision

- The Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the judgment of sentence for aggravated assault and battery.
- The court held that deadly force was not justified to protect an automobile from a suspected theft occurring outside in daylight where there was no imminent danger to the defendant or her home.
- The court rejected reliance on self-defense principles because the men posed no immediate threat of death or serious bodily harm.
- The court found the evidence sufficient for aggravated assault and battery based on the intentional firing of a rifle in the direction of the men and the resulting serious injury.

## Legal Principles

- Deadly force is permitted only in narrowly limited circumstances, typically to prevent specified violent felonies or to respond to an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm.
- The law does not permit endangering or taking human life merely to prevent theft or loss of property, even valuable property.
- A good-faith and seemingly reasonable belief that property is being stolen does not authorize the use of deadly force when no immediate threat to person or dwelling exists.
- Intentional discharge of a deadly weapon toward human beings supports aggravated assault liability when serious injury results; a claim of intent only to frighten does not negate responsibility for the natural and probable consequences of the act.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed Emmons’s aggravated assault and battery conviction, holding that firing a rifle to stop an apparent theft of an automobile parked outside was unjustified absent an imminent threat to life or home, and that the intentional use of a deadly weapon toward people with resulting serious injury supported the verdict.


Commonwealth v. Emmons, 157 Pa. Super. 495, 43 A.2d 568 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1945)