Site icon JONATHAN TURLEY

Self-Defense or Reckless Homicide? Indiana Homeowner Arrested After Shooting Alleged Felon

jonathanturley

In my torts class, we just discussed the privilege of self-defense, the Castle Doctrine, and statutory Stand Your Ground laws. There is a new case out of Indiana where Martell Pickens, 30, is facing reckless homicide charges for the shooting of Khadolphee Taylor, 25, outside his Fort Wayne home. The case shows the conflicts that arise in the application of both common law and statutory privileges in the use of lethal force.

Pickens told Fort Wayne police that he was woken up around 2:45 a.m. and saw a “suspicious” man walking around his neighborhood, according to the probable cause affidavit obtained by WANE.

Surveillance tapes reportedly showed Taylor attempting to break into Pickens’ home. He also alleged that Taylor had attempted to break into various cars.

Pickens grabbed a Glock .45 caliber handgun and went outside. He can be heard asked Taylor, “What are you doing?” and warned Taylor to “back up.”

According to Pickens, Taylor continued toward him but also acknowledged that Taylor was unarmed. He shot Taylor in the chest and he was later pronounced dead at the hospital.

Officers observed that Taylor appeared intoxicated or mentally impaired in a traffic stop twenty minutes before the shooting. He was also driving on a suspended license. He was given a citation and allowed to walk home.

In his affidavit, Fort Wayne Police Detective Brian Martin stated: “Based upon the investigation, Pickens knowingly armed himself and voluntarily exited the safety of his residence to confront Taylor,” concluding that there was “probable cause to believe Pickens recklessly killed Khadolphee D. Taylor by engaging in conduct constituting a plain, conscious, and unjustifiable disregard of harm, the disregard involving a substantial deviation from acceptable standards of conduct.”

He is being held without bond and could be facing up to six years in prison for reckless homicide.

The Indiana Stand Your Ground provision states in pertinent part:

“A person is justified in using reasonable force against any other person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person:

(1) is justified in using deadly force; and

(2) does not have a duty to retreat;

if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony.”

Here, the detective found that there was no reasonable belief that force was necessary. If upheld, Pickens could also be sued civilly in tort by survivors.

The case brings a number of cases to mind that I cover in my torts class. One is the Hattori case where a homeowner shot an unarmed teenager who was walking toward him in the dark outside of a Baton Rouge home.  Rodney Peairs, 31, shot and killed 16-year-old Japanese student, Yoshihiro Hattori (who was looking for a Halloween party) after she panicked due to the appearance of people coming to her door. She called on Peairs to get his .44-caliber Magnum revolver and he also went back outside to encounter the teenagers who were walking back to their truck. Peairs was acquitted in less than two hours by a Louisiana jury. He was later found liable in a tort action.

There was also the Trayvon Martin case where George Zimmerman shot an unarmed teenager whom he said attacked him and fought for his legally licensed handgun. Zimmerman was also acquitted.

In this case, Pickens is not claiming an assault but simply that he believed Taylor had committed offenses and was walking toward him.

We have also previously discussed Indiana and its Castle Doctrine, including a civil lawsuit brought by a burglar who was sought by a homeowner. Likewise, there was a case involving a housekeeper who was shot and killed by a homeowner. Indiana has a robust law (below) that allows the use of lethal force to prevent a forcible entry into a home. It specifically provides for the use of deadly force “to prevent or terminate the other person’s unlawful entry of or attack on the person’s dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.” The “curtilage” includes the area immediately adjacent to a home.

It is unclear whether Pickens will also claim a Castle Doctrine due to the proximity to the house or the curtilage.

As shown above, these cases tend to favor the defense, but the first step will be to determine if the defense will make a formal Stand Your Ground defense or Castle Doctrine claim. Notably, in the Trayvon Martin case, the defense actually did not make such a formal claim and instead relied on a classic self-defense claim.

As is often the case, the verdict will come down to the totality of these circumstances in the use of lethal force in determining whether Pickens had a reasonable belief. The statute codifies the common law standard in that sense. Juries tend to defer to the defense in dangerous or uncertain situations with an alleged criminal actor. However, this will be an interesting case to watch.

Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”

 

Exit mobile version