## Facts

- Ellen Gartland endured years of physical and emotional abuse by her husband, John Gartland, described as violent and jealous.
- After an argument at a tavern, the couple returned home and continued fighting; neighbors heard threats and abuse.
- The dispute escalated after John accused Ellen of hiding a television remote, left, returned, and renewed the argument.
- Ellen went to her bedroom; the spouses had used separate bedrooms for over a decade, and John had previously left her alone there.
- John followed her into the bedroom, ignored her request to leave her alone, and advanced toward her in a threatening manner.
- Ellen retrieved a hunting shotgun from a closet, pointed it at John, and told him to stop.
- John threatened to kill her and lunged toward her with clenched fists; Ellen fired once.
- John fell in the hallway and later died from the gunshot wound.
- Ellen immediately called for an ambulance and told police she shot her husband because she feared for her life.

## Issues

1. Whether the appeal became moot because the defendant died after filing her petition for certification.
2. Whether the jury instructions erroneously imposed a duty to retreat from the defendant’s bedroom before using deadly force in self-defense.
3. Whether the jury should have been specifically instructed that prior spousal abuse was relevant to the subjective and objective components of self-defense.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of New Jersey decided the appeal despite the defendant’s death because it raised significant, recurring questions about domestic violence and self-defense.
- The Court reversed the Appellate Division and set aside the conviction, ordering a new trial.
- The Court held the trial court erred by giving an unmodified model self-defense charge that effectively required retreat from the home without explaining the statutory no-retreat rule in one’s dwelling.
- The Court held the jury should have been instructed to consider whether the defendant’s separate bedroom functioned as a distinct dwelling space and whether the husband’s entry could be treated as that of an intruder for retreat purposes.
- The Court held it was error not to instruct the jury that the history of spousal abuse could be considered in evaluating both the defendant’s actual belief in imminent danger and the reasonableness of that belief.

## Legal Principles

- An appellate court may decide an otherwise moot criminal appeal when the issues are of substantial public importance and are capable of repetition yet evading review.
- In self-defense cases involving deadly force, retreat is required only if the actor knows she can avoid using deadly force with complete safety, subject to statutory limits, including the no-retreat rule within one’s dwelling in specified circumstances.
- Where evidence permits, the jury must be instructed on how the no-retreat rule may apply within a shared residence, including whether a separate bedroom can constitute a distinct dwelling area for retreat analysis.
- In cases involving domestic violence, the jury should be instructed that a history of spousal abuse may inform both the defendant’s subjective perception of imminent danger and the objective reasonableness of using deadly force.
- Repeating a generic model self-defense charge without tailoring it to disputed retreat and domestic-violence evidence can be reversible instructional error, particularly when the jury requests clarification.

## Conclusion

The court ordered a new trial because the jury charge on self-defense failed to properly address the statutory retreat exception in the home and did not expressly direct jurors to consider the history of spousal abuse when assessing the defendant’s belief in imminent danger and the reasonableness of her use of deadly force.


State v. Gartland, 149 N.J. 456 (1997)