High Court reverses man’s assault conviction

The NMI Supreme Court joined with a majority of U.S. jurisdictions in holding that Commonwealth defendants are not required to retreat before using reasonable force in self-defense. The High Court issued the ruling in reversing a criminal defendant’s convictions on Friday.

The case stemmed from a fight Francisco R. Demapan was involved in while attending a barbecue at a friend’s house. During the course of the fight, an attacker hit Demapan in the head with a belt buckle three times. As a result, Demapan swung a knife at his attacker, resulting in a minor cut on the attacker’s lower abdomen.

Demapan was charged with a number of crimes, including assault with a dangerous weapon. During trial, Demapan pleaded not guilty, claiming that because he was not the initial aggressor, he had no duty to retreat before fighting back. Demapan argued that “a person threatened with an attack that justifies the exercise of the right of self-defense need not retreat.” The trial judge, however, rejected Demapan’s argument, and impliedly indicated that Demapan had a duty to retreat before fighting back. The jury subsequently convicted Demapan of assault with a dangerous weapon.

On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed Demapan’s convictions and remanded them to the trial court for a new trial. After reviewing the law of self-defense in all 50 states, the High Court noted that 29 states, in addition to the U.S. Supreme Court, do not require defendants to retreat before using non-deadly or deadly force, “so long as they reasonably believe their use of force is necessary to prevent death or serious bodily harm.”

The court adopted “the majority view that defendants are not required to retreat before using reasonable . . . force to defend against unlawful aggressors.”

The court added that “in order to justifiably claim self-defense in exercising physical force, the following factors must be satisfied: (1) the defendant must have a reasonable fear of imminent danger; (2) the defendant may only use force against an unlawful aggressor; (3) the defendant’s use of force must be necessary; and (4) the defendant’s use of force must be proportional to the aggressor’s use of force.”

In so holding, the High Court aligned Commonwealth law with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. United States, which reasoned that “[d]etached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife.” The NMI Supreme Court stated that “victims need not yield their rights to unlawful aggressors, for ‘[i]f a defender is obligated to retreat, he is obligated to give way to the forces of…the wrong.’”

Justice John A. Manglona authored the unanimous Supreme Court opinion, and was joined by Justices Pro Tem Timothy H. Bellas and Herbert D. Soll. [B][I](PR)
[/I][/B]