Facts
- James A. Durham, a deputy game warden, attempted to arrest Charles Long for illegally fishing with a gill net, a misdemeanor.
- Durham identified himself as an officer and tried to take Long into custody.
- Long resisted, entered a rowboat with another man, and attempted to flee across the water; Durham held onto the boat to prevent escape.
- During the struggle, Long struck Durham about the head with an oar.
- Durham fired his revolver; the shot struck Long in the arm.
- Durham was charged with assault and battery with intent to kill, convicted by a jury, and fined $700.
- The trial court denied Durham’s motion for a new trial after instructing the jury, in substance, that an officer could not lawfully endanger a suspect’s life to arrest for a misdemeanor and that use of a dangerous weapon endangering life supported guilt.
Issues
- Whether the jury was improperly instructed on assault and battery by omitting the requirement that the touching or force be unlawful.
- Whether the jury was improperly instructed on a peace officer’s permissible use of force while making a lawful arrest and facing resistance.
- Whether the self-defense instructions improperly limited an officer’s right to defend himself while executing a lawful arrest.
Decision
- The Indiana Supreme Court reversed the judgment and remanded for a new trial.
- The instruction defining assault and battery was erroneous because it failed to include that the touching or force must be unlawful.
- The instructions on an officer’s use of force and self-defense were erroneous because they treated the officer’s conduct as categorically unlawful when life was endangered during a misdemeanor arrest, without allowing consideration of justification in light of violent resistance and self-defense.
- The instructional errors were prejudicial because justification and self-defense were central to the case.
Legal Principles
- Assault and battery requires an unlawful or wrongful application of force; a definition that omits “unlawful” misstates the offense where justification is in dispute.
- A peace officer making a lawful arrest may use no more force than reasonably appears necessary under the circumstances; unnecessary force may be resisted.
- An officer’s authority and duty in executing a lawful arrest affects the self-defense analysis; the officer need not retreat from lawful performance of duty in the face of violent resistance.
- Instructions must permit the jury to consider whether the officer’s use of potentially deadly force was legally justified by reasonable necessity and self-defense when the officer faces an immediate threat of serious bodily harm.
Conclusion
The court ordered a new trial because the jury instructions misstated the elements of assault and battery and improperly restricted the lawful justification and self-defense available to an officer attacked while attempting a lawful misdemeanor arrest.