## Facts

- Melody Downes rented her garage to Michael Fairall; a dispute arose after Fairall demanded return of a stereo Downes said had been sold.
- Fairall retaliated by vandalizing Downes’s property and breaking into her home, causing extensive damage.
- After Downes told Kelsey Dru Gleghorn about Fairall’s conduct, Gleghorn confronted Fairall at about 3:00 a.m. while Fairall slept in a loft area in the garage.
- Gleghorn pounded on the garage door, entered with a stick, shouted that he was going to kill Fairall, and struck the loft/rafters to force Fairall down.
- Fairall testified he saw sparks and believed Gleghorn started fires; Gleghorn lit small fires under the loft and threatened to “burn him out.”
- Fairall shot Gleghorn in the back with a bow and arrow.
- Fairall then climbed down, left the bow behind, and attempted to extinguish the fire.
- Gleghorn attacked Fairall and beat him severely, breaking his jaw, knocking out teeth, and causing other serious injuries.
- A jury convicted Gleghorn of simple assault (as a lesser included offense on the initial conduct) and battery with infliction of serious bodily injury.
- The trial court denied Gleghorn’s mistrial motion based on claimed inconsistent verdicts and insufficient evidence; it also instructed the jury with CALJIC No. 5.42 (right to eject a trespasser).

## Issues

1. Whether the jury’s verdicts (simple assault and serious-injury battery) were legally inconsistent or otherwise required a mistrial.
2. Whether sufficient evidence supported the conviction for battery with infliction of serious bodily injury.
3. Whether giving CALJIC No. 5.42 on defense of habitation/ejecting a trespasser was error.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment.
- The court held the verdicts were not legally inconsistent and were rationally reconcilable based on the sequence of events.
- The evidence supported the serious-injury battery conviction because the later beating occurred when the jury could find any immediate threat from Fairall had ended.
- The court rejected Gleghorn’s claim that the simple-assault verdict made Fairall’s arrow shot unlawful as a matter of law and thereby established Gleghorn’s self-defense.
- The court held CALJIC No. 5.42 was supported by the evidence and was not prejudicial error.

## Legal Principles

- The lawfulness of defensive force turns on the circumstances as they reasonably appeared at the time, not on the attacker’s undisclosed intent or a later verdict label applied to the initial assault.
- Deadly force is not justified in response to every nondeadly assault; it may be justified when a person reasonably believes he faces imminent death or great bodily injury.
- An initial aggressor generally cannot claim self-defense unless he actually and in good faith withdraws and communicates abandonment; an exception may apply when the victim responds with a sudden deadly counterassault, permitting reasonable defensive force without prior withdrawal.
- Even if an initial use of deadly force by the victim is arguably excessive, a defendant’s later use of force may be unjustified if the immediate threat has subsided; continued retaliatory violence can support a separate conviction.
- Verdicts are not set aside merely because they appear logically in tension; if the evidence supports each count, the convictions may stand, and the verdicts may be reconciled by treating the later violence as distinct conduct.

## Conclusion

The court upheld convictions for simple assault and battery causing serious bodily injury, concluding that the victim’s arrow shot could be justified by reasonable fear created by the nighttime threat and fires, and that the defendant’s later severe beating after the victim disarmed and attempted to put out the fire exceeded any lawful self-defense; the defense-of-habitation instruction was properly given.


People v. Gleghorn, 193 Cal. App. 3d 196 (Cal. Ct. App. 1987)