## Facts

- Jesse Pecco arranged with brothers Robert “Wes” Warrington and Andrew “Drew” Warrington to collect money Wes owed him.
- The debt arose from drugs; Wes had forged a $700 check from his father’s account to partially repay Pecco, with an agreement to meet later to cash it.
- Instead of meeting at the agreed location, Pecco drove to the Warrington residence, parked in a way that blocked Wes’s car, and entered through an unlocked front door.
- Pecco brought a knife into the house.
- A struggle began inside the home. Wes and Drew fought Pecco to gain control of the knife, and Drew also armed himself with a fireplace poker.
- The brothers stabbed Pecco multiple times with the knife and struck him in the head multiple times with the fireplace poker.
- A 911 call was made from inside the house. The recording captured Pecco pleading for mercy and asking the brothers not to kill him; it also captured Drew telling Pecco to “shut up” and continuing to assault him.
- Pecco died from the combined effects of the stabbing and blunt-force trauma.
- The Warringtons were tried together and convicted of first-degree murder, possession of a deadly weapon during the commission of a felony, and conspiracy.
- Over the Warringtons’ objection, the trial judge instructed the jury on “self-defense within a dwelling” under 11 Del. C. § 464 and added that self-defense is not available if, even if the initial use of force was justified, the defendants used deadly force after the danger to them had passed.
- The Warringtons appealed, arguing the instruction improperly limited § 464 and that they killed Pecco in self-defense.

## Issues

1. Whether 11 Del. C. § 464 (self-defense within a dwelling) continues to justify deadly force after an intruder has been subdued and no longer poses a threat.
2. Whether the trial court correctly instructed the jury that self-defense within a dwelling is unavailable if the defendants used deadly force after the danger to them had passed, even if the initial use of force was justified.

## Decision

- The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Warringtons’ convictions.
- The court held that § 464 requires a reasonable belief that the intruder will injure someone in the dwelling, and that belief must exist at the time deadly force is used.
- The court rejected the Warringtons’ argument that once § 464 is triggered it becomes a continuing right that allows a killing after the intruder is no longer a threat; the statute does not convert initial self-defense into a “license to kill.”
- The court held the challenged jury instruction accurately stated Delaware law by explaining that deadly force is not justified once the danger has passed.
- The court concluded the jury could find from the evidence, including the 911 recording and the nature of the attack, that the Warringtons continued using deadly force after Pecco was no longer an immediate threat.

## Legal Principles

- Delaware’s “self-defense within a dwelling” statute, 11 Del. C. § 464, permits an occupant to use deadly force against an intruder only when the occupant reasonably believes the intruder will injure someone in the dwelling.
- The required reasonable belief must exist when the defendant uses force; the justification does not automatically continue merely because the encounter began with an unlawful entry or an initial threat.
- After an intruder has been disabled or subdued so that the intruder no longer poses a threat, continued use of deadly force is not justified under § 464.
- A jury instruction may properly state that self-defense within a dwelling does not apply to deadly force used after the danger to the defendant has passed, even if earlier force was justified.

## Conclusion

Warrington v. State holds that 11 Del. C. § 464 allows deadly force in the home only so long as the defendant reasonably believes the intruder poses a current threat of injury; once the intruder is subdued and the danger has passed, further deadly force is unjustified, and the trial court properly instructed the jury on that limit in affirming the Warrington brothers’ murder convictions.


Warrington v. State, 840 A.2d 590 (2003)