## Facts

- Charles Keitt and two friends drove into the alley behind Bennie L. Peterson’s home to remove windshield wipers from Peterson’s wrecked car.
- Peterson confronted them in his backyard, argued, then went inside his house.
- Peterson returned with a pistol, loaded it, and warned Keitt not to move and not to come into the yard, threatening to shoot and to kill if Keitt entered.
- Keitt initially was about to leave but then exited the car, challenged Peterson, returned to the car, retrieved a lug wrench, and advanced toward Peterson with the wrench raised.
- Peterson told Keitt to stop; Keitt continued advancing in the alley. When Keitt was about ten feet away, Peterson shot Keitt in the face, killing him.
- Peterson was indicted for second-degree murder; a jury convicted him of manslaughter as a lesser-included offense.
- On appeal, Peterson challenged voir dire limitations, the sufficiency of the evidence, and the self-defense instructions (aggressor/provocation and retreat).

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion during voir dire by refusing to ask three proposed defense questions.
2. Whether the evidence was insufficient to support manslaughter, requiring a judgment of acquittal.
3. Whether the self-defense instructions were erroneous by allowing the jury to consider (a) whether Peterson was the aggressor or provoked the confrontation and (b) whether he failed to retreat when he could do so safely.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the manslaughter conviction.
- The voir dire rulings were within the trial court’s discretion and did not deny an impartial jury.
- The evidence permitted a rational jury to find manslaughter and to reject self-defense.
- The aggressor/provocation instruction was properly given because the evidence supported a finding that Peterson escalated the encounter by arming himself, loading the gun, and issuing lethal threats.
- The retreat instruction was proper because it did not impose an absolute duty to retreat; it permitted the jury to consider a safe opportunity to withdraw as relevant to necessity and reasonableness.

## Legal Principles

- A defendant may not justify a homicide as self-defense if he was the aggressor or provoked the difficulty, unless he withdraws in good faith and communicates that withdrawal by words or acts.
- “Self-generated necessity” does not support homicidal self-defense; the claim generally requires the defendant to be free from fault in creating the confrontation.
- Even where there is no categorical duty to retreat, the ability to retreat safely may be considered in evaluating whether deadly force was necessary and reasonable.
- Being on one’s premises does not create an absolute rule barring consideration of retreat, particularly where the defendant’s conduct helped create or escalate the danger.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Peterson’s manslaughter conviction, holding that the jury could be instructed to consider whether Peterson provoked the confrontation and whether he could have retreated safely, because those circumstances were relevant to whether deadly force was necessary and reasonable under self-defense law.


United States v. Peterson, 483 F.2d 1222 (D.C. Cir. 1973)