Constitutional Law

Harold Fish conviction reversed

Pdf of AZ Ct of Appeals ruling here. To shave a long opinion to its core--

Fish was hiking, saw another guy, waved, other guy's dogs charged him, he fired a warning shot. Then the other guy charged him, crazed look in eyes, windmilling arms and shouting threats. Fish shouted to halt and, that having no effect, shot him fatally.

Major issue on appeal: trial court refused to allow testimony from several other people that other guy, upon confrontation relating to his dogs, had rushed at them, crazed look in eyes, arms windmilling and shouting threats.

Ruling: general rule is that self defense must be based on reasonable fear, and reasonable fear cannot be based upon something the defender doesn't know (in this case, that the guy tended to go off balance with regard his dogs and behaving in a threatening way). Arizona case had allowed court to admit unknown events, in its discretion, but adoption of the federal rules of evidence (which have no such provision) as the state rules ended that. HOWEVER, the prosecution, by arguing that Fish's claim that other guy behaved so crazily was ridiculous, opened the door to Fish bringing in evidence that that was, in fact, how the guy had behaved in the past. Conviction reversed and sent back for new trial.

Full post as published by Of Arms and the Law on July 05, 2009 (boomark / email).