## Facts

- Two homicide prosecutions were reviewed together, each involving a defendant who claimed self-defense after a confrontation involving a knife.
- Under New Jersey’s Code of Criminal Justice, murder requires a purposeful or knowing killing; aggravated manslaughter involves recklessness “under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to human life”; self-defense requires a reasonable belief that force is immediately necessary.
- In Bowens’s case, the victim had previously threatened him with a knife and was known to be violent; when the victim approached again after initially retreating, Bowens stabbed him, claiming he feared he was about to be stabbed.
- The Bowens trial court charged the jury on murder and complete self-defense but refused any instruction tied to “imperfect self-defense” or manslaughter-level options; the jury convicted Bowens of first-degree murder.
- The Appellate Division reversed Bowens’s conviction, concluding the jury should have been instructed on manslaughter offenses because the self-defense-related testimony could support a lower culpable mental state than purposeful or knowing murder.
- In Rivers’s case, after an argument in which the victim threatened him with a knife, Rivers armed himself and later stabbed the victim when the victim approached again; Rivers asserted fear for his life.
- The Rivers trial court refused an “imperfect self-defense” instruction but did charge the jury on reckless manslaughter and other lesser-included offenses; the jury convicted Rivers of aggravated manslaughter.

## Issues

1. Whether the New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice recognizes “imperfect self-defense” as an independent justification, excuse, or mitigation that reduces murder to a lesser homicide.
2. If not, how evidence associated with an unreasonable or mistaken self-defense belief should be used in determining mens rea and the need for lesser-included homicide instructions.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of New Jersey held that the Code does not create an independent doctrine of imperfect self-defense.
- The Court held that evidence commonly described as “imperfect self-defense” evidence may be relevant to whether the State proved the mental state elements of murder or whether a lesser homicide offense is supported.
- As to Bowens, the Court affirmed the Appellate Division’s reversal because the jury should have been instructed on manslaughter-level offenses in light of evidence bearing on whether the killing was reckless rather than purposeful or knowing.
- As to Rivers, the Court affirmed the aggravated manslaughter conviction because the jury received instructions on the lesser-included homicide verdicts reasonably supported by the evidence, and no separate imperfect self-defense charge was required.

## Legal Principles

- The New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice does not recognize imperfect self-defense as a stand-alone partial justification or excuse reducing murder to manslaughter.
- Statutory self-defense requires a reasonable belief in the immediate necessity of force; unreasonable beliefs do not create a separate defense outside the Code.
- Evidence of fear and perceived need for self-protection may be relevant to whether the defendant acted purposely or knowingly (murder) versus recklessly (manslaughter offenses), and may require lesser-included offense instructions when supported by the record.
- Trial courts must instruct on lesser-included homicide offenses when there is a rational basis in the evidence for the jury to find a lower level of culpability.

## Conclusion

New Jersey rejected imperfect self-defense as an independent doctrine but required that self-defense-related evidence be considered in determining whether the State proved murder’s mental state and whether the jury must be instructed on manslaughter or other lesser-included homicide offenses.


State v. Bowens, 532 A.2d 215 (N.J. 1987)