## Facts

- Leake, described as small, youthful-looking, and missing his right hand, visited a woman described as physically strong and prone to violence.
- Evidence indicated Leake had previously provoked her and likely went to her house expecting a volatile reaction.
- During an argument at her house, the woman assaulted Leake with a heavy iron skillet.
- Leake responded by drawing a pistol and shooting her, killing her.
- The record raised questions about whether Leake could have safely retreated, including whether exits were blocked or barred.
- A jury convicted Leake of second-degree murder, and he appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a defendant who voluntarily enters a foreseeable violent confrontation and helps bring it about may be fully justified on self-defense grounds.
2. Whether, if full self-defense is unavailable, the violent skillet assault and physical disparity require reduction of the homicide from second-degree murder to manslaughter.
3. Whether self-defense for a defendant at fault depends on proof that retreat was impossible or highly dangerous (or otherwise unavailable due to physical constraints).

## Decision

- The Tennessee Supreme Court rejected Leake’s claim of complete justification by self-defense.
- The court reasoned that evidence of Leake’s prior and expected provocation meant he was “in his own wrong” and therefore not entitled to be wholly excused.
- The court indicated that full self-defense would require a showing that the assault was so sudden and violent that retreat was impossible or very dangerous, or that retreat was physically prevented (e.g., barred exits).
- The court treated the severe assault and Leake’s physical disadvantage as significant to culpability and consistent with mitigation principles, though the summaries do not clearly state whether the conviction was modified or left in place.

## Legal Principles

- A defendant who provokes or knowingly brings on a violent encounter generally cannot claim complete self-defense.
- For a defendant not wholly free from fault, deadly force may be justified only if necessity is shown—particularly that retreat was impossible, very dangerous, or otherwise unavailable due to physical restraint.
- The reasonableness of using deadly force may be affected by the lethality of the attack and disparities in strength or physical ability, which can support mitigation even when full justification is barred.

## Conclusion

Leake limited self-defense for a defendant who helped create a predictable violent confrontation, requiring strong proof that escape was not safely available before deadly force could fully excuse the killing, while recognizing that a potentially lethal assault and marked physical disadvantage may lessen the degree of homicide.


Leake v. State, 29 Tenn. 144 (1849)