## Facts

- Michael Goldberg, age 73, and his adult sons, Solomon and Jerome, were partners in a family business.
- After returning from Florida, Michael withdrew $4,000 from a $12,000 partnership bank balance without informing his sons, leading to a heated dispute at the business premises.
- During the argument, Michael left to get a wooden reel and returned apparently intending to use it as a weapon.
- Michael attempted to strike Jerome with the reel.
- Jerome responded by pushing Michael against a wall and briefly choking him to stop the attack.
- Michael filed a criminal complaint alleging assault and battery by both sons; Solomon was acquitted after a non-jury proceeding, and Jerome was convicted with an indefinitely suspended sentence.
- No stenographic transcript existed; appellate review proceeded on a factual summary settled by the trial court.
- The trial court rejected self-defense largely because Jerome did not leave the premises while Michael went to retrieve the reel.

## Issues

1. Whether a person lawfully present in his own place of business has a legal duty to retreat (leave the premises) rather than defend himself when faced with an imminent attack.
2. Whether, under the correct self-defense standard, the settled record supported Jerome’s assault and battery conviction or required acquittal based on self-defense.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division reversed Jerome Goldberg’s conviction.
- The court held Jerome had no legal duty to retreat from the business premises to avoid his father’s threatened attack.
- On the settled facts, the court concluded Jerome’s conduct was justified self-defense because his force was directed to stopping an imminent weapon attack and was not shown to be excessive.

## Legal Principles

- A person without fault who is lawfully present in his own premises or place of business is not required to retreat before using reasonable force to repel an unlawful, imminent attack.
- Self-defense permits the use of force reasonably necessary to prevent imminent bodily harm; liability may not rest on a requirement that the defender withdraw when the law imposes no such duty in that setting.
- The ordinary self-defense standard applies even when the aggressor is a family member; kinship does not negate the right to reasonable defensive force.

## Conclusion

The court set aside the assault and battery conviction because the trial court improperly treated Jerome as obligated to retreat from his own business and, on the settled record, Jerome’s brief restraint of his father was reasonable force used to stop an imminent attack with a weapon.


State v. Goldberg, 79 A.2d 702 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1951)