## Facts

- James Cecil Law, Jr. recently moved into a new neighborhood; within two weeks his home was burglarized, and he became fearful of another break-in.
- After the burglary, Law bought a 12-gauge shotgun and ammunition for protection and modified the kitchen door area, including installing double locks and making a temporary repair to a kitchen-door windowpane previously used as an entry point.
- About a week later, a neighbor saw suspicious light activity at Law’s darkened house around 8:00 p.m. and called police.
- Two police officers responded but did not contact the reporting neighbor and did not knock or identify themselves to the occupants before inspecting the premises.
- The officers checked windows and then entered the rear screened porch to examine the back door; they noticed the temporarily fixed kitchen-door windowpane and began removing molding and reaching into the window opening.
- Law and his wife, awakened upstairs, heard noises that sounded like an attempted entry; Law went downstairs, loaded the shotgun, and listened near the rear door.
- Believing a burglar was attempting to break in, Law fired through the rear door/window area, killing one officer; in the ensuing exchange, Law fired again and wounded the second officer.

## Issues

1. Whether evidence permitted convictions for second-degree murder and assault with intent to murder where the defendant fired believing an intruder was forcibly entering his home, without knowing the person was a police officer.
2. Whether the trial court failed to properly present to the jury defense-of-habitation/self-defense and the effect of a reasonable mistake on malice and lesser-included offenses.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed Law’s convictions for second-degree murder and assault with intent to murder.
- The case was remanded for a new trial.
- The court held that the jury was not adequately allowed, through the case framing and instructions, to evaluate whether Law acted under a reasonable belief that he was repelling a burglarious entry.
- The court concluded the record supported a reasonable view that Law’s conduct could be justified or, at minimum, inconsistent with malice, requiring consideration of acquittal or lesser-included offenses.

## Legal Principles

- A person in a dwelling may use deadly force when he reasonably believes an intruder is attempting a forcible felony or poses a threat of death or serious bodily harm.
- The legality of defensive force turns on the reasonableness of the defendant’s belief; a reasonable mistake about the intruder’s identity can negate malice.
- Second-degree murder and assault with intent to murder require malice; if the evidence supports a finding that the defendant reasonably believed he was repelling a forcible entry, the jury must be instructed to consider the resulting absence of malice and the possibility of lesser-included offenses.
- Where officers act at night without identifying themselves and their conduct could reasonably appear burglarious to an occupant, the jury must be allowed to assess how that context bears on reasonableness, justification, and malice.

## Conclusion

The court ordered a new trial because, given the unannounced nighttime inspection and partial entry that could reasonably be perceived as a break-in, the jury had to be properly instructed and permitted to decide whether Law reasonably acted in defense of his home and whether such a belief negated malice required for the charged offenses.


Law v. State, 318 A.2d 859 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1974)