## Facts

- Outside a Baltimore bar, Melvin J. Faulkner, Jr. argued with brothers Jimmy and Rickey Emanuel, and the dispute escalated into a fight.
- Faulkner believed Jimmy was armed with a knife.
- Faulkner drew a handgun and fired; Rickey was shot twice in the chest as he moved between Faulkner and Jimmy.
- Testimony conflicted on key points, including who was the aggressor, whether there was mutual combat, and what led Faulkner to think Jimmy had a knife.
- Faulkner was charged with assault with intent to murder and related handgun offenses.
- The trial court instructed on complete self-defense and mitigation based on hot-blooded response to mutual combat, but refused an imperfect self-defense instruction.
- The jury convicted Faulkner; an intermediate appellate court reversed for failure to instruct on imperfect self-defense.

## Issues

1. Whether Maryland recognizes imperfect self-defense as a mitigating doctrine.
2. If recognized, whether imperfect self-defense applies to the offense of assault with intent to murder.
3. Whether the evidence required an imperfect self-defense jury instruction in this case.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of Maryland held that Maryland recognizes imperfect self-defense in homicide cases under an “honest but unreasonable belief” standard.
- The court held that imperfect self-defense applies to assault with intent to murder because that offense is defined by reference to murder.
- The court ruled that imperfect self-defense negates malice and therefore reduces assault with intent to murder to, at most, simple assault (because Maryland does not recognize assault with intent to commit voluntary manslaughter).
- The court agreed the evidence fairly generated the issue and that the trial court erred by refusing the requested instruction, leaving the reversal of the convictions in place.

## Legal Principles

- The difference between murder and voluntary manslaughter turns on the presence or absence of malice; complete self-defense is a justification that results in acquittal.
- Imperfect self-defense is a partial defense that negates malice when the defendant honestly, but unreasonably, believes deadly force is necessary.
- When evidence fairly generates imperfect self-defense, the defendant is entitled to a jury instruction permitting consideration of that mitigation.
- Because assault with intent to murder requires an intent that would constitute murder if death occurred, defenses available to murder—including imperfect self-defense—apply to that assault offense.
- If imperfect self-defense negates malice, the “intent to murder” element fails, limiting liability to lesser assaultive offenses.

## Conclusion

The court adopted the “honest but unreasonable belief” form of imperfect self-defense in Maryland and held that, when supported by the evidence, the jury must be instructed on it; the doctrine applies to assault with intent to murder by negating malice and reducing the offense to no more than simple assault.


State v. Faulkner, 301 Md. 482, 483 A.2d 759 (Md. 1984)